This is a well-written description of a particular incident and its possible implications for one area of free speech. While I believe participation in civil disobedience inherently requires the group to expect to be punished (what meaning would the action have if there was no sacrifice involved?), that doesn't mean that it is legitimate to hand down stiff penalties for nonviolent civil disobedience. The blockading probably cost the company money, and our legal system says we as a society are entitled to compensation. I can't imagine that a court would find the actions of this group, as described, to be "eco-terrorism," even by its most recently expanded definition. I hope the ACLU will take up their case, because it seems to be a good one for distinguishing the difference between free speech, civil disobedience, and so-called "eco-terrorism."