Note that it's labeled "terrorism" only in some interest group's "model bill."
Random interest groups are allowed to call whatever they like "terrorism," and they're allowed to write poorly thought out bills.
Also note that most of the bills are failing.
Even Missouri, where the article says one passed, you're just required to notify law enforcement if you witness animal abuse, and offer them copies of your video:
>Note that it's labeled "terrorism" only in some interest group's "model bill."
This reminds me of an old web design trick. You get the customer specs, plan out exactly what you think will work, and then add something stupid-looking. Like a giant duck by the login button. The duck acts as a decoy for customer complaints; a lot of business people want to point at something and say "change it!", so you give them that. And when they bring it up you smile and say "say no more, I'll have it removed sir".
Likewise, if complaints about a given bill can be pulled or drawn towards language like "terrorism", then the meat of the bill avoids some scrutiny. Hell, an unscrupulous legislator whose constituency opposes the bill could demand the terrorism language be cut and then end up supporting the bill, pleasing both sides of the aisle as it were.
Random interest groups are allowed to call whatever they like "terrorism," and they're allowed to write poorly thought out bills.
Also note that most of the bills are failing.
Even Missouri, where the article says one passed, you're just required to notify law enforcement if you witness animal abuse, and offer them copies of your video:
http://www.senate.mo.gov/12info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionTyp...
It's a strange type of gag order that only compels speech.
I mean, these are definitely still bills worth challenging, but the article seems to be embellishing a bit.