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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @04:21PM
The group he's referring to is these people:
Animal cruelty is, in fact, a crime. Torture certainly classifies as cruelty.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 06 2015, @03:45PM
Anyone who gets off making an animal suffer needs to be made to suffer.
Animal cruelty is, in fact, a crime. Torture certainly classifies as cruelty.
He didn't say animal cruelty, he said people with certain psychological defects. Just because someone "gets off" on animal suffering doesn't mean that they choose to act on that impulse.