Timeless Myths about the Animal Liberation Front

Myth 1: The Animal Liberation Front is an organization.

Fact: The ALF is a subset of the leaderless animal liberation movement.

The myth is perpetuated by the media with statements such as "The Animal Liberation Front released a statement that..." or "The Animal Liberation Front claimed credit for ...."

Occasionally the media is quasi-correct by saying the ALF is a leaderless organization.

Admittedly we confuse the issue by referring to "ALF members". ALF membership is self-proclaimed, based on a person's beliefs and actions (see the ALF Credo). In this respect it is similar to being a vegan or utilitarian philosopher. It would be accurate to say that "An ALF member released a statement ..." although the media often ignores the fact that the claimed action is not consistent with the ALF credo.

Media often report that an ALF member deliberately endangered the life of a sentient being. This is akin to saying that a vegan deliberately ate a ham sandwich. It ignores the definition.

Exacerbating the myth is the fact that many people read the media reports, then they self-proclaim to be an ALF member based on the myth.

Myth 2: The ALF guestbook and the discussion forum both block opinions that refute its extremist views.

Fact: We encourage differing opinions because they stimulate thought.

We encourage attacks on the premises of the animal rights philosophy. We discourage repetition of the questions answered in the FAQs because repetition is boring. We look for slightly different slants and angles on the FAQs because in more than 20 years there have been very few new rebuttals to the basic animal rights philosophy.

Myth 3: The website encourages violence.

Fact: It shouldn't hope not. It is emphasized at every opportunity that no ALF action should endanger ANY sentient being, from rodents to humans.

It's a major portion of the ALF credo and guidelines. The web site prints articles relating to animal rights issues around the world. It is essentially a library with no personal commentary. Could it encourage violent behavior? After reading about mankind's cruelty to animals it is likely to cause people to tear out their own hair in frustration (much like any other public news broadcast).

If it is not trying to encourage violence, why does the web site show how to make bombs?

The only destructive action the ALF encourages is the destruction of property used to abuse and torture animals. It's rare that anyone would encounter this, and there are only a few pages out of thousands that show the techniques used by anarchist groups. The webmasters didn't create these pages, they are part of the history of the ALF, decades old and obsolete. They have disclaimers stating that the information is for entertainment only.

Doesn't it send the wrong message?

You can take the wrong message from anything if you want to. Example: After 9/11, throughout the US, TV programs showed how easy it was to get through airport security by doing certain specific things. And how dirty bombs and other "weapons of mass destruction" could arrive on U.S. soil via shipping cargo crates. This was relatively unknown, sensitive, up-to-date security information. One could say that the media was trying to destroy America, but of course, that was not their intent. Neither is it the intent for anyone to use the information on our pages to harm anyone.

But if a TV station were called Al Qaeda and it showed those same things, you'd think it was encouraging them, correct? So why isn't it reasonable to assume that a website called The ALF, who tells us how to make bombs, is encouraging that behavior?

Taken out of context, what you said is true. Just as if a website were called "cannibalism" and if you told someone that it showed how cannibals cooked people, someone might say that it encourages eating humans. However, put back into the context that it is an information site about cannibals, with no opinions added, you'd arrive at a different conclusion. The first thing anyone should read about the ALF is its credo and guidelines. These put everything else into perspective.

What would you think if I showed you a young man who had read the ALF website and was then encouraged to take an action that later cost him his freedom?

I know that is a possibility, just as it is equally possible that the articles on the website about folks going to jail for taking direct action may have discouraged someone from taking any action who might have intended to do so. I believe all sides of reality are represented.