Slashdot Mirror
Idaho Law Against Recording Abuses On Factory Farms Ruled Unconstitutional
onproton writes: An Idaho law that made it illegal to record and document animal abuse or dangerous hygienic practices in agricultural facilities, often referred to as an 'ag-gag' law, was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge on Monday. The judge concluded that the law restricted constitutionally protected free speech, and contradicted "long-established defamation and whistleblowing statutes by punishing employees for publishing true and accurate recordings on matters of public concern." Idaho is just one of several states to pass this type of law, which allow food production facilities to censor some unfavorable forms of speech at their convenience. Under the Idaho statute, an employee that witnessed and recorded an incident, even if it depicted true and life-threatening health or safety violations, could be faced with a year in jail and fines of up to "twice the economic loss the owner suffers." In his ruling (PDF), the judge stated that this was "precisely the type of speech the First Amendment was designed to protect." This decision has raised questions about the constitutionality of these types of laws in other states as well, and it's likely that there will be more legal battles ahead.
Except, it doesn't apply. This case is about videos that are shown to be about factual events that are displayed in a truthful format that are both covered under the 1st amendment and would likely also be protected under whistleblower laws. The "abortion tissue" videos aren't covered under either. The 1st amendment does not protect you in cases of libel, slander or creating a public danger and whistleblower laws do not cover non-employees in most cases. The supposed Planned Parenthood videos were blocked by a court of law as they were found to be, at best, a carefully edited mischaracterization of a meeting where what was likely a completely legal conversation was warped into an apparent conversation about an illegal act or, at worst, a complete fabrication created by paid actors to switfboat Planned Parenthood during an election year. Either apparent version of events would put the video clearly in the category of libel and therefore, not protected speech by law. Though we do not know all the facts in the case yet, the judge found enough evidence that the video was libelous to put an injunction against further release until it can be investigated fully.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
You haven't been watching the news the past week, have you?
This is about an anti group filming Planned Parenthood execs discussing what sounds like selling baby parts, and, at best is exceptionally crude behavior in discussing crushing apart bodies to get at certain parts, like an auto junk yard worker.
A court has upheld stopping the video release because they signed an NDA as part of being undercover.
It's been suggested if this was someone filming a Koch brother feeding money to a Republican candidate, no court in California would hold up the NDA over the vital interests of the people to know.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
> Aside from the fact that it's funded by taxpayers.
No it isn't. Taxpayer funding for abortions has been disallowed for 20 years.
There is also a lack of a public interest waver around an abortion because it has no impact on you personally and is not in contravention of any laws.
Aside from the fact that it's funded by taxpayers.
Planned Parenthood is barred from using taxpayer money to pay for abortions. All federal money that goes to Planned Parenthood is spent on women's health, such as STD screenings, or checkups.
The issues with the Planned Parenthood videos are their surreptitious nature, recording somebody under false pretenses and then editing the content to advance anarrative.
This would be distinct from an employee recording actual events.
They have a set of accounting that PROVES (and the IRS and NIH BOTH agree that this is proven) that they don't use government money for abortions.
Your shitheaded insistence that "they get some money, and they mix it all up, so the actual dollar from the tax office can't be proven NOT to have been spent" is ridiculous: NO MONEY CHANGED HANDS. Only the balance.
Your scared hypthesis hasn't been the case for well over 100 years.
No, they weren't haggling for a better price. They were saying what you'd have to pay for whatever quality or urgency of tissue you wanted.
Your post is trying to insinuate that they were haggling for a price of the tissue, but no, it's the transport.
It truly was a donation, and a flat rate would NOT offset their costs because the costs depend on what they're sending, to whom.
Just like postal service costs differently depending on whether it's first or second class, recorded, registered or not, and the size and weight of the parcel.
So, no. Your pseudo conspiracy proof is only proof you're talking bollocks.
Money is fungible.
Why doesn't Planned Parenthood get broken up into two separate organizations: 1) a woman's clinic and 2) an abortion center? The woman's clinic can receive federal money and because the new abortion clinic organization is totally separate (with different leadership), then they don't need to receive a dime from the taxpayer.
Answer me this. If Planned parenthood is much more than abortion and gets most of its revenue from other places other than abortion, then why did several Planned Parenthood clinics close when Texas' new stricter abortion laws took into effect? Couldn't those closed Planned Parenthood clinics just stop providing abortion but continue to be open and provide women health services like cancer screening?
> As I've heard absolutely ZERO people saying that the full length video says something totally different who has provided specific examples
Like I said. You're a partisan that won't let facts get in the way of your crusade.
FactCheck.org has a nice article on this where they reference a number of legitimate same collection companies and researchers.
The unedited remarks include phrases like "breaking even" and "not impacting care of patients".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Last week, Massachusetts’ Attorney General Maura Healey became the latest in what’s sure to be a long list of state attorneys general to conclude the same thing. Specifically, Healy concluded,
“Over the past week, my office has conducted a thorough review and found that Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts’ health care centers are fully compliant with state and federal laws regarding the disposition of fetal tissue. Although donation of fetal tissue is permissible under state and federal law, PPLM does not have a tissue donation program. There is no evidence that PPLM is involved in any way in the buying or selling of tissue. As such, our review is complete.”
Sure, Massachusetts is a leftward-leaning state, but Indiana is very much not. Back on July 16, Gov. Mike Pence, R-Ind., launched an investigation of Planned Parenthood following the release of what was obviously a doctored and misleading video. The probe focused on facilities in Indianapolis, Bloomington and Merrillville, and this past week the Indiana Department of Health reported it was “unable to find any non-compliance with state regulations. Therefore, no deficiencies were cited.”
Answer me this. If Planned parenthood is much more than abortion and gets most of its revenue from other places other than abortion, then why did several Planned Parenthood clinics close when Texas' new stricter abortion laws took into effect? Couldn't those closed Planned Parenthood clinics just stop providing abortion but continue to be open and provide women health services like cancer screening?
Probably for two reasons:
(1) The bombings
(2) A strong ethical and moral stance that services which are constitutionally legal, such as those involved in not forcing a woman to be an incubator for a rapists spawn, are not severable from other legally allowed medical services
I could guess at other reasons as well.
1) what bombings?
http://prochoice.org/wp-conten...
I could not find any info about recent bombings in Texas that were the cause of Planned Parenthood clinics for closing. Why would anyone bomb a clinic if they closed because of the stricter Texas law?
Because the U.S. Supreme court blocked enforcement of the admitting privileges provisions of HB 2 on 29 Jun 2015, in a 5-4 vote, reversing the appeals court ruling, at least temporarily. Your inability to do research is is not an indicator of you being right.
2) Your 2nd answer doesn't answer my question. Why did the clinics close if they could not conduct abortions anymore due to the stricter Texas law?
Actually, it was the revocation of both the clinic licenses and the doctors licenses that resulted in the man (but not all) the clinics closure. Others were due to the bomb threats in the statistics noted above (the law passed in 2013).
The loss of the licenses was engineered by anti-choice advocates opposed to abotion, and was managed as an intimidation and threat campaign, and as a letter writing campaign to hospital boards in various areas.
This was done by tracking doctors and patients license plate numbers. Due to this pattern of intimidation, even the clinics that were able to maintain services found that they had no customers, and that women were traveling out of state to Kansas, Oklahoma, and sometimes as far as Missouri for medical treatment.
Except of course, poor women who could not afford the travel expenses. Mostly, they just had to stay pregnant, and have babies they couldn't afford to raise, with no recourse, and somewhat extensive medical expenses, which are normally associated with having babies.
Why couldn't they still stay open to provide the necessary women health services?
Because they lost their licenses to operate, and it's illegal to practice medicine without a license... even in Texas.