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.
Can't wait to see this applied to the abortion video TROs.
See that "Preview" button?
but how is this news for nerds?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
There is a faggot
He puts his erect penis
In a man's anus.
A judge that rules in favor of righteousness. Impressive!
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
but how is this news for nerds?
It's "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters". You've got a low enough user ID you should know that. This falls under the stuff that matters though I'm pretty sure nerds care about free speech too. Plus more than a few of us actually care about animal abuse.
Let me guess, legislative capture?
How were these clearly bogus laws voted in, in the first place? It seems pretty obvious that documenting health/safety violations would be protected from legal retaliation, much like how truth is an absolute defense against libel charges. Otherwise, there's no point to even having health or safety codes, if corporations can just say "yeah yeah, we're up to code, but no peeking!"
because I really need to tell people that these Monsanto Triffids(tm) are really getting out of hand!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
As a member of the animal agriculture community for over 15 years, I've never understood the point of these laws. They are essentially an admission that there is a problem, and that we'd rather try to gag our opponents than address it.
/. and other forums defending animal agriculture because, while I would be the first to admit we can do better, I think we do a much better job caring for our animals than most people believe. Animal rights groups do not concern themselves over much with things like facts, accuracy, or fair descriptions of why we do things the way that we do, but that does not mean that we should try to silence them. Instead we should be engaging with those willing to dig a little deeper than a 30sec sound byte, or a 5 paragraph news article by a writer with no direct connection to agriculture. We should explain, WHY we believe that gestation stalls are better than group housing for stalls, WHY castration of males is better for the animals and the humans who work with them, HOW we've developed programs like PQA Plus, TQA Plus, etc. These questions and misconceptions won't go away on their own, and gag laws do nothing to help our case.
I spend a lot of time on
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
Just goes to show that as much as big companies and wealthy individuals would like to change that—and have been trying very hard over the past few decades to do so—profit is still not, in fact, more important than free speech. Or the Constitution, or people's lives.
Let's just hope we do see more cases like this. Laws like that are a terrible perversion of the American legislative system.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
The people who passed those laws should be locked up for civil rights violations. Why in the world are we letting big business write our laws? What is the point of voting if this is the way things are always going to work?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Shouldn't there be a point when elected officials who consistently show behavior that attempts to circumvent our protected freedoms would be held criminally liable?
I woke up today to hear on the news how Germany has effectively outlawed Keynesian economics in those countries that were suckered into the Euro currency union (the Right in the UK were absolutely right to avoid joining the monetary union. It's a shame they get so much else wrong).
On the elevator I saw a news blurb on how Hedge funds are demanding that Puerto Rico close their schools to pay back debts (rather than take a haircut on their risky investments that earned them well over market interest rates for years. Hint: you get that interest rate because your return is risky, not guaranteed).
And of course there's the endless snowden leaks that make Security Systems look benign, and the ridiculously skewed anti-abortion propaganda that may bring down one of the most important institutions for women's health, and so on and so on.
It really does feel like the world of Channel 23, and wondering how soon they will ban the off switch (rhetorical shots across the bow are already being made, with talk of ad blockers "violating copyright". How soon until turning off your TV is the same?)
Finally, after years of giving corporations and the rich unfettered leeway to buy elections, exploit the poor and middle class (and now, more and more, the upper-middle class), we get a judicial ruling in favor of people over corporations. Of course, our downward death spiral will no doubt resume shortly, but in the meantime it is a breath of fresh air to see sanity in our courts for once.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
GOP politicians felt that publicizing personal behavior they may have engaged in with farm animals with the consent of all parties involved, was nobody's business but their own.
that such a law even came to be in the first place, clearly tells what a complete shit-hole of rampant injustice and capitalism the U.S has become. Well, enjoy your tortured, hormone- and antibiotic-laced meat dinner.
I'm sick of listening to you so called men sticking up for women's' rights for having an abortion. If they didn't want to
be pregnant, they shouldn't have been fucking. I've heard that same argument from a woman who defended another
woman who tricked her man into getting her pregnant. "If he didn't want a kid, he shouldn't fuck" is exactly what she
said. So to me, it's the same argument for women. As to rape and incest, it's not like the child chooses it's mother or
father, so why kill it because of how it was made? Don't we allow physically and mentally challenged people have
babies? Following that logic, children made from incest are most likely be physically or mentally challenged, just like
having children from mentally or physically challenged people. It's like the centuries of men protecting women and
children from these dangers of rape and incest have been superseded by women, by the woman's rights movement,
to supersede the rights of the children. To say that you're ok with a woman having an abortion, yet can't allow your
self to kill someone in cold blood, is hypocritical. It most likely has to do with the majority of you who consume
flesh to begin with. It's like killing an unborn child is no different than eating cows, pigs, chickens, or whatever
flesh you enjoy consuming. Eating flesh has no meaning and killing unborn life has no meaning at all.
At least one member of a group called Mercy for Animals got a job at the Bettencourt dairy. They filmed for several weeks with hidden cameras and didn't find any abuse, which is what you would expect. Happy cows are productive cows, and productive cows are profitable. Anyone who has spent any time on a dairy farm knows this. So the undercover coached the workers to abuse the cattle without the owners knowing. This was a setup from the beginning to the end. The owners of the dairy were as upset by the video as anyone.
Don't fool yourself, there are plenty of people from all walks of life who'd like to infringe on the civil rights of others. It's just the wealthy and powerful who have the resources to actually do it. Don't think for a second that just because your neighbor is out there openly against something that is upheld by the constitution that they're in favor of it.
But kneejerks like yourself are looking to point blame as part of a bigger agenda. In the end I wouldn't be at all surprised if you wouldn't be willing to also infringe on the rights of others based on this shallowly hidden agenda.
for the sole purpose to make these videos.
Are you saying they didn't bother to pick up their paychecks?
A legal argument could easily be made here.
Specifically, they accepted the position of employment under false pretenses, and are minimally guilty of larceny, as a result of felonious breach of trust and/or embezzlement. In addition, it could be argued that they engaged in theft of services (if there were any training involved for the job), and in Illinois, at least, would get them one to ten years in prison, per count.
In addition, there's the possibility that civil liability would attach, in the form of restitution and damages. This would arise both as a result of the damages to the businesses reputation, loss of income, but also loss of services during the time that the employee was defrauding the business when the business had an expectation that their investment in the employee would be of long term benefit. This would accrue based on the business losing the services of the employee(s) they would have hired in place of the fraudsters, had they known they were misrepresenting themselves.
Note that in many states, it would also be possible to pursue conspiracy charges, in the absence of a specific whistleblowing statute (or press indemnification statute -- the U.S. has neither, generally, as the Whistleblower Protection Act only applies to Federal Employees), particularly if there was an employment NDA involved (upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Snepp v. United States).
In other words, if they *did* pick up their paychecks, they are in a substantially worse position than had it merely been Criminal Trespass. I personally find this outcome particularly amusing.
this is how. http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
How were these clearly bogus laws voted in, in the first place?
The law was not bogus, and the decision is unlikely to be upheld on appeal.
There is a substantial difference between someone breaking and entering your property and filming, vs. committing fraud by accepting employment, and potential other crimes in the process, when compared to a legally designated government inspector from the Department of Health or Department of Agriculture.
These were not long time employees suddenly incensed by recent activity, and they were not long time employees who suddenly got the anti-factory-farm religion because they happened to start dating a vegetarian.
The laws happened because there is an ongoing problem of these activists illegally entering the property -- technically breaking and entering, criminal trespass, and a large set of other chargeable crimes, and the police were getting sick and tired of responding to those acts, so they strengthened the penalties. When it became to costly, in terms of risk vs. reward to use those tactics any more, then the activists resorted to fraud. The specific law which was declared unconstitutional in Idaho was enact to strengthen the penalties against this fraud. In other words, it's an escalation of tactics.
This judges decision will likely be thrown out on appeal on the basis of contravening the "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre" theory of limitations on first amendment rights, since what they were filming on the farm generally has no bearing on actual food safety, according to the Ag. Inspectors, and was intended to be alarmist and result in a negative backlash, rather than an increase in food safety. These people are in fact anti-meat activists.
Like the "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre" theory, you are in fact free to say what you want; however, what you say may also have social, civil, or even criminal consequences which you don't like and don't want. But that's what happens to people who acto out sociopathic tendencies for what they see as justifiable ends: ostracism, lawsuits, or (ultimately) criminal charges.
I spend a lot of time on /. and other forums defending animal agriculture because, while I would be the first to admit we can do better, I think we do a much better job caring for our animals than most people believe.
You are right that a lot of people have a poor to non-existent idea of what good animal husbandry involves. But agribusiness has kind of brought the problem on themselves by turning a blind eye to some of the more egregious practices in the industry. The basic problem is that ag corporations are not financially incentivized to be humane to the animals. The bottom line rules all and if push comes to shove, humane treatment of animals too often gets sacrificed needlessly. I'm not even talking about the folks who simply have no sense of compassion with regard to livestock though there are too many of those out there. The problem is really that there clearly hasn't been sufficient effort put into making industrial scale farming also humane farming.
Animal rights groups do not concern themselves over much with things like facts, accuracy, or fair descriptions of why we do things the way that we do, but that does not mean that we should try to silence them.
You claim that agribusinesses aren't being treated fairly (sometimes true) but you are painting with the same broad brush. Most animal advocacy groups are not a bunch of lunatics like PETA just like not every farmer is doing horrid things to their livestock. And just because things in agriculture are done a certain way doesn't automatically make them ethical or humane or smart. I've got enough of a background in agriculture to understand a lot of the practices rather well but I also simply think a fair number of them are rather stupid and even counterproductive. And it's not hard to find evidence to back me up on that.
You are quite right that there are VERY good reasons for many of the practices in agriculture. Safety not the least among them. But there also are a lot of practices that are obsolete, unnecessary or needlessly harsh or dangerous or even counterproductive. (like overuse of antibiotics) The goal should be to get everyone to the very best practices with the latest and most humane techniques and that is most assuredly NOT being done.
I'm under no illusions where my food comes from but the moment they engage in and/or cover up inhumane treatment of animals my sympathy for those engaged in such practices goes away. Folks who pass laws clearly designed to protect unethical conduct should be treated just like we treat any other criminals who abuse animals because that is what they are trying to protect. They are circling the wagons without even giving a moment's reflection on whether what is going on is justified or right. They really only have themselves to blame.
These factory farms are not going to stop torturing animals unless they are forced to do so.
If you cannot record what actually happens, then how would anybody know?
I think this is one of the videos in question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN_YcWOuVqk
Tell me how they were actually being nice to the cows, but the video makes it look like animal torture?
Also, are there not experts who can tell if a video is edited?
Whistle blowers deserve every advantage in making things public. There is no sane reason to protect any business from wrong doing. The very people that pretend to be patriots and church goers are the very ones wanting to suppress free speech and hide wrong doing. It is disgusting that a state could ever pass such un American laws.
> There is a substantial difference between someone breaking and entering your property and filming, vs. committing fraud by accepting employment, and potential other crimes in the process, when compared to a legally designated government inspector from the Department of Health or Department of Agriculture.
Because 1) government is corrupt. In Idaho, the gov are a bunch ag people themselves. 2) when the government is watching, you know they are watching you, and you modify your behavior. What matters is what happens when the government is not watching.
> These were not long time employees suddenly incensed by recent activity, and they were not long time employees who suddenly got the anti-factory-farm religion because they happened to start dating a vegetarian.
1) So what? 2) Of course the long-time employees would be okay with it, otherwise they would not be long time employees. The torturers were stung by an undercover whistle blower, what is wrong with that?
> The laws happened because there is an ongoing problem of these activists illegally entering the property -- technically breaking and entering, criminal trespass, and a large set of other chargeable crimes, and the police were getting sick and tired of responding to those acts, so they strengthened the penalties. When it became to costly, in terms of risk vs. reward to use those tactics any more, then the activists resorted to fraud. The specific law which was declared unconstitutional in Idaho was enact to strengthen the penalties against this fraud. In other words, it's an escalation of tactics.
"Resorted to fraud" - just listen to you. These concerned individuals wanted to document what actually happens. How else can you do it? How else do you stop the torture?
> This judges decision will likely be thrown out on appeal on the basis of contravening the "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre" theory of limitations on first amendment rights, since what they were filming on the farm generally has no bearing on actual food safety, according to the Ag. Inspectors, and was intended to be alarmist and result in a negative backlash, rather than an increase in food safety. These people are in fact anti-meat activists.
It is not about food safety, so much, as cruelty to animals. And these factory farmers are horrifically cruel to animals.
> Like the "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre" theory, you are in fact free to say what you want; however, what you say may also have social, civil, or even criminal consequences which you don't like and don't want. But that's what happens to people who acto out sociopathic tendencies for what they see as justifiable ends: ostracism, lawsuits, or (ultimately) criminal charges.
How else do you stop these animal torturers?
BTW: it's okay to "shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" if the theater is on fire.
One of the few damned things he's done that I agree with. The big turkey, chicken and hog factory owners in this state were HUGELY supporting making whistleblowing illegal, after numerous embarrassing incidents involving health and animal cruelty issues in their plants and farms.
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/...
Excellent post.
How could anybody defend animal torture?
It's funny and scary to see liberal prog types bend over backwards to defend their butt buddy Planned Parenthood. I guess it's libelous to film some moron running their mouth.
Even if that were your concern, you would be willing to accept blanket exceptions to this law for employees and for anyone who obtained their information without breaking and entering (including undercover journalism). Something the supporters of this law obviously weren't.
Your further appeal to the "shouting 'Fire'" limitation on free speech to get the verdict repealed appeal indicates that you won't accept such exceptions either.
The so-called "fraud" you go on about is a standard journalistic practice to obtain evidence on scandals and wrongdoing that would otherwise remain undetected (or at the very least unreported) because of non-cooperation, threats, abuse of power, or plain criminal behaviour on part of powerful individuals or firms.
For better or worse, this sort of thing (up to and including criminal behaviour) is absolutely ingrained in US history and culture. And so it its antidote, "free speech". Free speech isn't about being "nice" or "lovable" or "fuddy duddy". It can be (and indeed often is) a means of fighting a conflict.
I can only conclude that you really want to see free speech, the very essence of our culture, curtailed when it threatens to inconvenience commercial interests. You want to see the conflict "resolved" by ensuring the basic facts it's about remain outside the public view. You're not he first and you certainly won't be the last.
As I see it, this is where you cross the line between "being concerned" and "bluntly trying to suppress speech you don't like".
...remains illegal throughout many parts of the country.
These factory farms are not going to stop torturing animals unless they are forced to do so.
If you cannot record what actually happens, then how would anybody know?
You would trust that your Department of Agriculture, and you local Health Department, are doing their jobs, and if they are doing their jobs, then the treatment of the animals is no worse than the fact that people intend to eat them at some point.
> In Idaho, the gov are a bunch ag people themselves.
I would hope so. If the major industry in the state is Agricultural, And the government is supposed to represent the people, hopefully a large part of the elected officials have that background.
Would you think it more appropriate that the government in Idaho be made up purely of Lawyers, Bankers, Auto people and Actors?
yes lets just ignore the shortage of inspectors.
or did you think that each plant has an inspector on site at all times? (they don't)
or that they are primarily concerned with food safety, not animal abuse.
they may report it if they see it, but theres also the fact that they usually know the inspector is coming.
The FDA readily admits that it only inspects about 1% of the food imported into the country, and only about a quarter of all domestic plants.
The USDA, who inspects meat, is stretched so thin that they regularly miss required inspections at plants. Roughly 15% of all inspector positions nationwide are vacant, and unlikely to be filled due to budget cuts. and inspectors are expected to inspect 6-8 plants a day, with a typical inspection taking about 2 hours (which is very short).
They are overworked, underpaid, and understaffed.
And most plants know when they're coming.
Which is how you get things like last years massive recall of nearly 2 million pounds of ground beef from just 1 plant, that had probably been sending out bad meat for over a year.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I find it strange and unusual that the law was struck down based upon "Free Speech" provisions. The term Free Speech in America seems to go far beyond the usual understanding elsewhere in the world.
To me, these laws ought to be suspect from an animal cruelty, animal husbandry, and livestock management perspective.
On the other hand I can imagine a livestock operator not wanting to be under continual scrutiny, even in principle. Just about any business owner would feel entitled to set rules about where cameras could be used, how often, and so on. Those concerns typically relate more to the monitoring of people more than animals, but still.
How you keep a lid on animal abuse in a farm setting is unclear to me. Is there any existing inspection regime? Is the inspection system sound, regular, and professional?