SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the how-your-food-really-gets-made dept.
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: 3, Interesting) by mendax on Wednesday August 05 2015, @09:46AM
Laws like the one which was struck down are almost always unconstitutional. Prior restraints on free speech imposed by the government are unconstitutional unless there is some compelling reason for justifying it, and it has to be VERY compelling. To give you an idea of how compelling it has to be, the classified report known as the Pentagon Papers [wikipedia.org] were obtained by the New York Times and the attempt by the government to prevent their publication was quashed by the Supreme Court. And I remember reading when I did some legal research about a California case [wikipedia.org] where a man's conviction for disturbing the peace because he wore a T-shirt with the words "Fuck the draft" was tossed on similar grounds.
I really don't understand why governments continue to do these stupid things. They're going to lose in court in every case.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by physicsmajor on Wednesday August 05 2015, @12:57PM
That's simple: someone has to fight it, the courts are slow, and until a decision is made, they get away with the illegal limitations.
Also trusting the courts is dangerous. Only takes one stupid, bad, or corrupt judge to set precedents we then have to live with. The smaller defendant can go bankrupt at any time, leaving a bad decision unappealed. Can't count on SCOTUS to do their jobs today, either.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday August 05 2015, @05:37PM
On this one I think you can count on them to toss it if it ever gets that far, and it probably won't. It might be appealed to them but I doubt they'll choose to hear the case unless the lower court says the law is constitutional.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday August 05 2015, @01:37PM
they buy time, they get things 'done' for their friends and they can say 'hey, we tried!'
also, there is the chance that the fight will last years and maybe they might even win and get to keep their illegal law.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 05 2015, @02:27PM
Too true. The full context of the decision is not laid out in the summary: This was a trial court decision. It can now be appealed to the Court of Appeals, and from there to the Supreme Court. So the fight is far from over.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday August 05 2015, @05:33PM
The fight is far from over but the law and other laws like this are dead. I'd bet real money, not Bitcoin, on it.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 05 2015, @07:23PM
The fight needs to be fought as hard as possible. I'm a pessimist though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @02:09PM
I really don't understand why governments continue to do these stupid things.
Because the act of going to court is punishment in and of itself. You put a person in jail for a while, get negative publicity against them, deprive them of income for the period of time, have a permanent record of them being arrested, have the expense of getting a lawyer, have the uncertainty of whether the courts will find for the innocent person.
There is also the Chilling Effect [wikipedia.org]. As well as the trying to shift the Spheres in Hallin's Spheres [wikipedia.org]. Not to mention Political Posturing [wikipedia.org].
And courts are far from perfect. No matter what your political or legal bend I'm sure you can think of at least one case which went the "wrong way." There is every chance that a law could stick even when it "shouldn't."
There are numerous reasons why a politician would vote in these kinds of laws... and that's even assuming they don't honestly believe it is the right thing to do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @02:24PM
Prior restraints on free speech imposed by the government are unconstitutional unless there is some compelling reason for justifying it, and it has to be VERY compelling.
Wrong. They are *always* unconstitutional, if you read the real first amendment, and not the fake version the courts created.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday August 05 2015, @05:34PM
I really don't understand why governments continue to do these stupid things. They're going to lose in court in every case.
It is pandering to a political base. After these bad laws are inevitably struck down, you get a lot of hand-wringing and whining about "activist" courts, thus further uniting the political base and ensuring re-election.