Satya has ceased publication. This website is maintained for informational purposes only.

To learn more about the upcoming Special Edition of Satya and Call for Submissions, click here.

back issues


June/July 2005
The Myth of Free Speech
By Steven Best

Editor’s note: On May 18 the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works conducted a hearing into the actions of the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front. Dr. Steve Best was out of the country at the time and unable to testify. After the hearing began, Professor Best was removed from his post as Chair of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Texas, El Paso.

The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans anymore than black people were made for white or women were made for men.—Alice Walker

With some irony, I listened to the testimony against me during the recent Senate Environment and Public works Committee meeting on ecoterrorism from Prague, land of Franz Kafka. From an Internet cafe in the Old Town sector, I heard Senators, the FBI’s Director for Counterterrorism, and a raving lunatic from a front group for animal exploitation industries demonize me as a terrorist. They tarred and feathered me as a philosophy professor who supports the illegal actions of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). Some even accused me of using my position to recruit students into the criminal underground of masked liberationists.

Czechoslovakia has nothing on the U.S. when it comes to the “Kafkaesque.” Tragically, our nation has reverted to the witch hunts of the 1950s and once again is in the frenzied throes of McCarthyism, persecuting free speech and dissent. The House Un-American Activities Committee now goes by the name of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) presides in place of Senator Joseph McCarthy, and the bogeyman of “communism” has been replaced with that of “terrorism.” The Red Scare has morphed into a “Green Scare” where bands of radical environmentalists and animal rights activists allegedly threaten the security of the nation.

For years, I have openly expressed support for the courageous and just actions of the ALF. The ALF is the abolitionist movement of the present day with the exception that, unlike its 19th century predecessor, it liberates nonhuman animals from slavery. Similar to the Underground Railroad’s “criminal” actions during the earlier abolitionist movement, the ALF frees captive animals, provides them with much-needed veterinary care, and funnels them to loving homes. Unlike those who torture, exploit, and kill animals for profit and dubious “research” purposes, the ALF does not fit any viable definition of terrorism. They will destroy the property of animal exploiters in order to weaken or eliminate their capacity to harm animals, but in over 30 years of action, the ALF has never harmed one of these exploiters. It is an odd “terrorist” indeed who has never harmed anyone, but rather liberates beings from dire suffering and death.

After 9/11, President Bush said that, “A nation has a right to defend itself against terror.” I believe this right holds for the animal nations too. But since they cannot defend themselves, animal rights activists come to their aid. Whereas legal approaches can reduce the suffering of animals, they can never alone eliminate it, for the political and legal apparatus of the state is controlled by powerful corporate interests that profit from exploiting and killing billions of animals every year.

Animal liberationists seek not bigger cages, but rather empty cages. The ALF belongs to a noble direct action and civil disobedience tradition in the U.S. This began with the Boston Tea Party; extends through Henry David Thoreau, the abolitionists, the suffragettes, Martin Luther King Jr. and the struggle for civil rights; and continues today with the environmental and animal rights movements. The tradition is rooted in the belief that there often is a profound distinction between what is legal and what is ethical, such that to do the right thing might require one to break the law and even destroy property.

I think most people intuitively support ALF principles. If a sadist were laying traps to kill dogs and cats in one’s neighborhood, would it be wrong to destroy these traps? If children instead of animals were kept confined in cages, pumped full of household cleansers until they died, and the police did not respond, wouldn’t we all break down the damn doors to free them? Why then is it any different when we are talking about illegal actions on behalf of animals? Because they have four legs instead of two?

In fact, it is not ALF tactics that people disagree with, but rather the species the tactics represent. Since I believe animals have the same basic rights as humans, I reject the prejudice of speciesism and simply follow a logical train of thought, as my profession trained me to do.

I understand that my views are controversial and unpopular, but they are protected by the Constitution. I defend the ALF only in words, never deeds. I work for animal rights only in legal ways, never illegal ways, and I operate openly in the aboveground movement and never clandestinely in the underground movement. I am not a member of the ALF, nor do I know or communicate with anyone in the ALF. I support their courageous actions in defense of animal rights, but to respond to the malicious claim made to the Senate by the Center for Consumer Freedom, I have never attempted to recruit students into the ALF. That is an outrageous and absurd lie characteristic of McCarthyesque hysteria and persecution.

In a sane Washington, the legislative branch of government would be holding hearings on how to eradicate all forms of animal exploitation, not how to perpetuate them. It would be going after the real domestic terrorist threat—that posed by extreme right-wing hate groups with a long record of violence—not the ALF. It is so unfortunate that the U.S. government is wasting precious resources on persecuting activists like myself, while leaving our nation unprotected from the real foreign and domestic terror threats.

Free speech does not exist in the U.S., and one realizes it as soon as one begins to exercise the alleged right to it.

Dr. Steven Best is former Chair of the Philosophy Department at the University of Texas, El Paso. Many of his writings can be read on his website at



All contents are copyrighted. Click here to learn about reprinting text or images that appear on this site.