Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday August 05 2015, @05:49AM   Printer-friendly
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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by physicsmajor on Wednesday August 05 2015, @12:57PM

    by physicsmajor (1471) on Wednesday August 05 2015, @12:57PM (#218471)

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday August 05 2015, @05:37PM

    by mendax (2840) on Wednesday August 05 2015, @05:37PM (#218667)

    Can't count on SCOTUS to do their jobs today, either.

    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.