SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Intercept reporter Lee Fang obtained emails through an Idaho public records request exposing dairy lobbyist involvement in crafting "Ag-gag" legislation. "Ag-gag" describes a class of agricultural industry anti-whistleblower legislation that now exists in several states, usually prohibiting photography and audio/visual recording:
State Sen. Jim Patrick, R-Twin Falls, said he sponsored the bill in response to an activist-filmed undercover video that showed cows at an Idaho plant being beaten by workers, dragged by the neck with chains, and forced to live in pens covered in fæces, which activists said made the cows slip, fall and injure themselves. The facility, Bettencourt Dairies, is a major supplier for Burger King and Kraft. The workers who were filmed were fired.
Introducing the bill, Patrick compared the activists behind the Bettencourt video to marauding invaders who burned crops to starve their enemies. "This is clear back in the sixth century B.C.," Patrick said, according to Al Jazeera America. "This is the way you combat your enemies." Patrick's bill was introduced on February 10, 2014, sailed through committee within days, and was signed by Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter on February 28. The legislation calls for a year in jail and fines up to $5,000 for covertly recording abuses on farms or for those who lie on employment applications about ties to animal rights groups or news organizations.
But the groundwork was laid by Dan Steenson, a registered lobbyist (pdf) for the Idaho Dairymen's Association, a trade group for the industry. Steenson testified in support of the ag-gag bill, clearly disclosing his relationship with the trade group. Emails, however, show that he also helped draft the bill. On January 30, before Sen. Patrick's bill was formally introduced, Steenson emailed Bob Naerebout, another Dairymen lobbyist, and Brian Kane, the Assistant Chief Deputy of the state attorney general's office, with a copy of the legislation. "The attached draft incorporates the suggestions you gave us this morning," Steenson wrote, thanking Kane for his help in reviewing the bill. Kane responded with "one minor addition" to the legislation, which he described to Steenson as "your draft." The draft text of the legislation emailed by Steenson closely mirrors the bill (pdf) signed into law.
Original Submission
(Score: 5, Informative) by Gravis on Saturday May 30 2015, @05:17PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
i think this senator should be thrown in jail for violating something so basic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @05:23PM
Nah, just grind him up and feed him to the cows
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @05:43PM
This bill is illogical as well as unconstitutional and amoral. Effectly saying the criminals are the ones watching in horror and want to speak, not those commiting atrocious acts (sin) Jeb Bush push the first of these laws through in Florida. Clearly it's on a large agenda against food safety. People take action against a worsening and tragedy.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @06:17PM
> Clearly it's on a large agenda against food safety.
If that's what you think then you don't understand corruption and will fail at fighting it.
Food safety or the lack thereof isn't even on the minds of the people pushing these bills.
There is only one thing they care about - profits. Any impact on food safety is negligence, not maliciousness.
"Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories."
-- Sun Tzu
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Cowherd on Saturday May 30 2015, @06:48PM
It's worse than that. They've hijacked the term "food safety" to malign people who expose the goings-on.
"We are a farm that makes food - terrorists from > want to damage our food security by taking footage and showing it out of context".
I wish I were exaggerating, but this is exactly what happened - not just in Idaho but in a handful of other states as well.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @07:01PM
> It's worse than that. They've hijacked the term "food safety" to malign people who expose the goings-on.
This is utterly normal. I mean it isn't nice or anything but it is the way these things go.
The powerful hijack the language of the protesters in order to give themselves (false) legitimacy.
For example, back in the 70s it was trendy among anti-racists to say things like "I don't see color." Now that's been hijacked by the racists. It was Stephen Colbert's go-to line to skewer them, he'd say "I don't see race, I only know that I'm white because people tell me so."
In some ways it is an acknowledgement that the protests are starting work because nobody would bother trying to co-opt language that didn't have some power behind it.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday May 30 2015, @05:47PM
Force him to live in a pen covered in feces? ;)
There's surely someone that can take advantage of the position..
Seriously, there are many senators that would be suitable for jail.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tathra on Saturday May 30 2015, @06:56PM
everyone who drafts or supports unconstitutional laws like this disgusting garbage should be put in prison for violating Title 18 USC § 1918. [cornell.edu] pretty obvious that anyone who drafts or supports unconstitutional laws is advocating the overthrow of our constitutional form of government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @07:08PM
No one is prohibited from publishing a story about the atrocities that happen on these farms. They're just going to have to get a different source for their story.
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Cowherd on Saturday May 30 2015, @10:36PM
This law abridges the freedom of speech and freedom of press by rendering them unable to obtain footage from a farm.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Saturday May 30 2015, @10:38PM
Exactly. I only clicked the link to post that the legislature had no authority to pass that law, and that the law has no force. I would ignore the damned thing entirely if I were in the process of exposing a bunch of cretins. When I went public with my stuff, I would quite naturally be charged under that law, and then I would be on my way to the Supreme Court.
Corporate law is bullshit, whether the ag industry writes the laws, or the entertainment industry writes the laws. Every time a "representative" decides to represent industry ahead of his constituents, he has committed treason.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FakeBeldin on Sunday May 31 2015, @10:12AM
Non-USAian here.
Question: Congress != states, right?
So if states enact state law, that is not congress enacting a law.
So why would state laws have to abide by the constitution?
Is that only if/when the state's constitution explicitly #include's the USA constitution? (I imagine this being the case for all states and other parts of the country.)
(Score: 2) by bziman on Sunday May 31 2015, @03:22PM
Right. The federal constitution is the supreme law of the land. Individual states each have their own constitution. If a state makes a law, it has to be valid under the state constitution, or the state courts should overturn it. If it is valid under the state constitution but not the federal constitution then it has to be overturned in federal court (for example anti gay marriage amendments at the state level).
Of course there is no guarantee of that. Nearly all federal laws are unconstitutional, simply because the federal constitution says explicitly that any powers not specifically enumerated are reserved for the states or the people.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday May 31 2015, @04:24PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org]
The tricky thing is that this doesn't seem to have so much to do with publishing accounts of livestock abuse but that it's a restriction on the process of gathering evidence.
A proper legal argument about why this law is bad isn't coming to me, but nevertheless I find it disturbing that the State of Idaho and big ag would want to effectively encourage livestock abuse. Comparing shaming big ag over livestock abuse to burning crops is quite the bit of hyperbole.