A federal judge in Idaho has ruled that an "ag-gag" law is unconstitutional. For those unfamilar, an ag-gag law, as defined by the article is "[a law that] outlawed undercover investigations of farming operations, is no more. A judge in the federal District Court for Idaho decided Monday that it was unconstitutional, citing First Amendment protections for free speech". As reported:
Laws in Montana, Utah, North Dakota, Missouri, Kansas and Iowa have also made it illegal for activists to smuggle cameras into industrial animal operations. But now those laws' days could be numbered, according to the lead attorney for the coalition of animal welfare groups that sued the state of Idaho.
"This is a total victory on our two central constitutional claims," says University of Denver law professor Justin Marceau, who represented the plaintiff, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, in the case. "Ag-gag laws violate the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause. This means that these laws all over the country are in real danger."
"Ag-gag" refers to a variety of laws meant to curb undercover investigations of agricultural operations, often large dairy, poultry and pork farms. The Idaho law criminalized video or audio recording of a farm without the owner's consent, and lying to a farm owner to gain employment there to do an undercover investigation.
Previously: Dairy Lobbyist Crafted Idaho's "Ag-Gag" Legislation.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Gravis on Wednesday August 05 2015, @09:44AM
it should be a punishable offence to pass overtly unconstitutional laws like this.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday August 05 2015, @09:50AM
Agreed. I think the punishment should be that they be burned at the stake. It seems appropriate. If that seems inappropriate, they should be forced to live in a small cage in one of these awful chicken farms for a week or work for a month in a chicken slaughtering plant. If they ever eat chicken again I'll be shocked.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday August 05 2015, @01:27PM
they should either be burned at the stake or have their heads cut off.
I think the stake is better; a hot steak is much better than a cold chop! (nyuk, nyuk!)
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @03:58PM
It is. [cornell.edu]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @05:07PM
> it should be a punishable offence to pass overtly unconstitutional laws like this.
Its called having to run for election.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @06:21PM
And when they lose, they move immediately into being a lobbyist for the same industry they passed this law for. That's a heckuva punishment.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday August 05 2015, @09:32PM
If a normal person breaks the law, do they just lose an election? No. They receive some sort of actual punishment, which oftentimes ends up being jail or prison. For something as serious as violating the highest law of the land, the punishment should be quite severe (prison time), and they should be barred from public positions of power.