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: 1) by tftp on Thursday August 06 2015, @12:32AM
Or unethical activities. You can argue that what qualifies as unethical varies from person to person, but that's irrelevant to me.
Well, consider this then:
I think what you just did is unethical. As that's not illegal, I can't call the cops on you. Instead I'm going to destroy your business by convicting you in the court of public opinion, where the jury is NOT assembled from his peers and where the accused has no right for due process.
Again, it is not proper to call the cops on activities that are not codified as prohibited. I can even say that the reporting employee would be violating his employer's privacy with his livestock. Where does the employer's privacy ends and the animal's rights begin? I'll agree that sadism with animals is not OK - but is merely "an insufficient" (IMO) level of care is an indication that the employer should lose his livelihood without even the right to explain himself? Is a barbed wire, or electric fence cruel? Is a dry pasture with little vegetation cruel? Is not shooting the coyotes who try to snatch a calf cruel? Is shooting those coyotes cruel? Maybe you should just talk nice to them?
As you can see, I do object to expansion of the definition of whistleblower to anything that the observer personally considers "unethical activities." This is a steep slippery slope. There is not a single person in the world who does not consider some legally protected activities to be unethical. If you are pro-choice, for example, you are advocating for the world where pro-lifers destroy legal businesses of medical professionals who do what their clients want. This is why I say that you, and I, should be welcome to have personal opinions; but we should not have right to wantonly destroy legally functioning businesses just because *we* happen to dislike them. The law, made by elected representatives, says that those activities are protected. An individual has no right to make his own laws; if he doesn't like something, the first thing he can do is to get a different job; and then, perhaps, petition Congress. Otherwise it will be anarchy where everyone enforces his own set of laws by any means available, from black PR to arson and murder of doctors. We had a preview of that already [wikipedia.org].
My concern is that by fighting for well-being of animals you may tilt the balance so much that some well-established human freedoms will be undermined. There are already laws in all countries and states that prohibit animal abuse; they clearly differentiate between traditional methods of animal husbandry and abnormal, cruel and pointless infliction of pain and suffering. Reporting a sadist to the police not as much protects the animals, as it protects the humans from a budding serial killer.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 06 2015, @01:29AM
That's all food for thought. I'll reiterate other poster's points that trespass and performing tasks outside of your established duties are civil infractions, and that no criminal code law need be passed to deal with those acts. Civil law is quite sufficient to deal with contract violations.
The court of public opinion, huh? Well - let us bear in mind that most businesses related to the production of food are located in rural areas. The products of these businesses are sold to large corporations, for the most part. It's pretty tough to boycott Farmer Jones pork, because Farmer Jones doesn't market his product under his own name at the grocery in your neighborhood. The court of public opinion really can't touch Farmer Jones. That court would have to go after ConAgra, or Pilgrim, or some other mega-corporation.
Also, as has been pointed out, there are long established, accepted industry standards that are generally conformed to. If Farmer Jones conforms to standards, or very nearly conforms to those standards, then public opinion in the local community will be with Jones. If Jones, however, is known throughout the community to NOT conform to those standards - well - his ass may be grass, and the court you mention will be the lawn mower.
All in all, I think that things will tend to balance out. One doesn't address a spate of civil disputes by passing criminal law, outlawing photography in the vicinity of a protected business. One doesn't protect one group of people, by outlawing another group of people.
Time and again, the Supreme Court has made rulings which state that if and when an issue must be addressed, the law must be the least intrusive possible. There are times when freedom of speech must be restricted, but the very least oppressive measures must be taken. A blanket law that criminalizes photography in rural areas certainly won't meet that standard. Nor will a law which criminalizes photography on farms, or even inside of barns.
I would say that an ethical farmer has little to fear from the public. An unethical farmer and/or unethical employees has much to fear. And, that is the way it should be.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday August 06 2015, @02:05AM
Well, consider this then:
I've considered it. Sounds like freedom of speech to me. If people choose to listen your speech, that's on them.
I can even say that the reporting employee would be violating his employer's privacy with his livestock.
You could, but it would be silly be it has nothing to do with them personally, and freedom of speech ultimately trumps the "privacy" aspect anyway.
This is a steep slippery slope
And not reporting anything because it's technically not illegal isn't? Nice try.