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.

Comments

Re:Cool

[TheReaperD]

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.