The Intercept reporter Lee Fang obtained emails through an Idaho public records request exposing dairy lobbyist involvement in crafting "Ag-gag" legislation. "Ag-gag" describes a class of agricultural industry anti-whistleblower legislation that now exists in several states, usually prohibiting photography and audio/visual recording:
State Sen. Jim Patrick, R-Twin Falls, said he sponsored the bill in response to an activist-filmed undercover video that showed cows at an Idaho plant being beaten by workers, dragged by the neck with chains, and forced to live in pens covered in fæces, which activists said made the cows slip, fall and injure themselves. The facility, Bettencourt Dairies, is a major supplier for Burger King and Kraft. The workers who were filmed were fired.
Introducing the bill, Patrick compared the activists behind the Bettencourt video to marauding invaders who burned crops to starve their enemies. "This is clear back in the sixth century B.C.," Patrick said, according to Al Jazeera America. "This is the way you combat your enemies." Patrick's bill was introduced on February 10, 2014, sailed through committee within days, and was signed by Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter on February 28. The legislation calls for a year in jail and fines up to $5,000 for covertly recording abuses on farms or for those who lie on employment applications about ties to animal rights groups or news organizations.
But the groundwork was laid by Dan Steenson, a registered lobbyist (pdf) for the Idaho Dairymen's Association, a trade group for the industry. Steenson testified in support of the ag-gag bill, clearly disclosing his relationship with the trade group. Emails, however, show that he also helped draft the bill. On January 30, before Sen. Patrick's bill was formally introduced, Steenson emailed Bob Naerebout, another Dairymen lobbyist, and Brian Kane, the Assistant Chief Deputy of the state attorney general's office, with a copy of the legislation. "The attached draft incorporates the suggestions you gave us this morning," Steenson wrote, thanking Kane for his help in reviewing the bill. Kane responded with "one minor addition" to the legislation, which he described to Steenson as "your draft." The draft text of the legislation emailed by Steenson closely mirrors the bill (pdf) signed into law.
Original Submission
Related Stories
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.
A federal judge has ruled that Utah's ban on secretly filming farm and slaughterhouse operations is unconstitutional:
[U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby] rejected the state's defense of the law, saying Utah had failed to show the ban was intended to ensure the safety of animals and farm workers from disease or injury.
In his ruling, Shelby noted that one of the bill's sponsors in the state legislature, Rep. John Mathis, said the ban was a response to "a trend nationally of some propaganda groups ... with a stated objective of undoing animal agriculture in the United States." The judge noted that another sponsor, Sen. David Hinkins said it targeted "vegetarian people that [are] trying to kill the animal industry."
Ag-gag is a term used to describe a class of anti-whistleblower laws that apply within the agriculture industry.
Previously: Dairy Lobbyist Crafted Idaho's "Ag-Gag" Legislation
Federal Judge Strikes Down Idaho's "Ag-Gag" Law
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @04:33PM
"The workers who were filmed were fired."
They should have ground them up and fed them to the cows.
after all no whistle-blowing and filming allowed : ) so no problem.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Saturday May 30 2015, @04:39PM
It seems like owning your own government officials is the sign that you've really "made it" these days.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @04:41PM
I doubt it's ever really been all too different, they're just more shameless about it today (or less competent when it comes to hiding it).
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday May 30 2015, @07:42PM
Considering that the government is openly, but secretly, negotiating the TPP with its horror story without any input from the allegedly represented unwashed masses, it's more likely they are simply emboldened by their superiors success?
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Sunday May 31 2015, @04:27AM
Its called regulatory capture [wikipedia.org] and its as old as dirt, see cable rules being written by people who then immediately get cushy jobs working for cableco, the rules for the bailout being written by Goldman Sachs, Obamacare being written by big pharma, it goes on and on and on.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 4, Funny) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday May 30 2015, @04:46PM
Dairy Lobbyist Crafted Idaho's "Ag-Gag" Legislation
I thought it was Popeye.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tynin on Saturday May 30 2015, @04:50PM
I hope this doesn't slow down those that would shine a light on what goes on in some of these less than sanitary meat harvest factories. Without some manor of oversight their is no reason for companies not to take the cheapest path and cut corners, be that with sanitation, quality of food, and general conditions these animals are kept in. And for my own selfish reasons, animals that die happy taste better than those that die scared, or injured.
(Score: 4, Touché) by isostatic on Saturday May 30 2015, @05:38PM
Invisible hand! The market will provide!
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @06:25PM
"Manor of Oversight" - Is that like the Big Brother house?
(Score: 3, Funny) by tynin on Saturday May 30 2015, @06:34PM
LOL, whoops. :)
Tune in tonight for Manor of Oversight and see who will be nominated for evisceration.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Saturday May 30 2015, @08:04PM
animals that die happy taste better than those that die scared, or injured
Do you have a link to a peer reviewed paper? Double blind experiments etc? Have you personally participated in one of those experiments to confirm your thoughts on the matter?
(Score: 2) by tynin on Saturday May 30 2015, @08:20PM
This is about the best i could find on short notice:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf960136%2B [acs.org]
Not sure about any double blinds.
I've personally had both deer and hog that were killed instantly, quickly cleaned and cooled. I've also had them where the first shot didn't do the job and they continued to run for a couple miles. Animals that are scared and hurt taste quite a bit different. I haven't experienced the difference in cow personally under those conditions.
(Score: 1) by Squidious on Sunday May 31 2015, @08:28PM
Adrenalin causes a bad taste. That is why game killed quickly tastes better.
The terrorists have won, game, set, match. They've scared the people into electing authoritarian regimes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @10:21PM
Do you have a link that explains why you missed the bit where he explains that it's for his own "selfish reasons?"
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Sunday May 31 2015, @12:34AM
I have not wrong with his "for selfish reasons" choice, as a free market proponent that believes libertarianism is the answer it's clearly the best position for him to take.
I just wonders of there was any non-anecdotal evidence. Obviously I'm willing to pay for such evidence, and pay to confirm such evidence is legitimate, and ultimatum reproduce the tests myself, but a head start would be appreciated.
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Cowherd on Saturday May 30 2015, @10:40PM
Too late for that - by buying animal products from farms in ag-gag states you're already voting with your dollars on the issue.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Gravis on Saturday May 30 2015, @05:17PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
i think this senator should be thrown in jail for violating something so basic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @05:23PM
Nah, just grind him up and feed him to the cows
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @05:43PM
This bill is illogical as well as unconstitutional and amoral. Effectly saying the criminals are the ones watching in horror and want to speak, not those commiting atrocious acts (sin) Jeb Bush push the first of these laws through in Florida. Clearly it's on a large agenda against food safety. People take action against a worsening and tragedy.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @06:17PM
> Clearly it's on a large agenda against food safety.
If that's what you think then you don't understand corruption and will fail at fighting it.
Food safety or the lack thereof isn't even on the minds of the people pushing these bills.
There is only one thing they care about - profits. Any impact on food safety is negligence, not maliciousness.
"Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories."
-- Sun Tzu
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Cowherd on Saturday May 30 2015, @06:48PM
It's worse than that. They've hijacked the term "food safety" to malign people who expose the goings-on.
"We are a farm that makes food - terrorists from > want to damage our food security by taking footage and showing it out of context".
I wish I were exaggerating, but this is exactly what happened - not just in Idaho but in a handful of other states as well.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @07:01PM
> It's worse than that. They've hijacked the term "food safety" to malign people who expose the goings-on.
This is utterly normal. I mean it isn't nice or anything but it is the way these things go.
The powerful hijack the language of the protesters in order to give themselves (false) legitimacy.
For example, back in the 70s it was trendy among anti-racists to say things like "I don't see color." Now that's been hijacked by the racists. It was Stephen Colbert's go-to line to skewer them, he'd say "I don't see race, I only know that I'm white because people tell me so."
In some ways it is an acknowledgement that the protests are starting work because nobody would bother trying to co-opt language that didn't have some power behind it.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday May 30 2015, @05:47PM
Force him to live in a pen covered in feces? ;)
There's surely someone that can take advantage of the position..
Seriously, there are many senators that would be suitable for jail.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tathra on Saturday May 30 2015, @06:56PM
everyone who drafts or supports unconstitutional laws like this disgusting garbage should be put in prison for violating Title 18 USC § 1918. [cornell.edu] pretty obvious that anyone who drafts or supports unconstitutional laws is advocating the overthrow of our constitutional form of government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @07:08PM
No one is prohibited from publishing a story about the atrocities that happen on these farms. They're just going to have to get a different source for their story.
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Cowherd on Saturday May 30 2015, @10:36PM
This law abridges the freedom of speech and freedom of press by rendering them unable to obtain footage from a farm.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Saturday May 30 2015, @10:38PM
Exactly. I only clicked the link to post that the legislature had no authority to pass that law, and that the law has no force. I would ignore the damned thing entirely if I were in the process of exposing a bunch of cretins. When I went public with my stuff, I would quite naturally be charged under that law, and then I would be on my way to the Supreme Court.
Corporate law is bullshit, whether the ag industry writes the laws, or the entertainment industry writes the laws. Every time a "representative" decides to represent industry ahead of his constituents, he has committed treason.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FakeBeldin on Sunday May 31 2015, @10:12AM
Non-USAian here.
Question: Congress != states, right?
So if states enact state law, that is not congress enacting a law.
So why would state laws have to abide by the constitution?
Is that only if/when the state's constitution explicitly #include's the USA constitution? (I imagine this being the case for all states and other parts of the country.)
(Score: 2) by bziman on Sunday May 31 2015, @03:22PM
Right. The federal constitution is the supreme law of the land. Individual states each have their own constitution. If a state makes a law, it has to be valid under the state constitution, or the state courts should overturn it. If it is valid under the state constitution but not the federal constitution then it has to be overturned in federal court (for example anti gay marriage amendments at the state level).
Of course there is no guarantee of that. Nearly all federal laws are unconstitutional, simply because the federal constitution says explicitly that any powers not specifically enumerated are reserved for the states or the people.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday May 31 2015, @04:24PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org]
The tricky thing is that this doesn't seem to have so much to do with publishing accounts of livestock abuse but that it's a restriction on the process of gathering evidence.
A proper legal argument about why this law is bad isn't coming to me, but nevertheless I find it disturbing that the State of Idaho and big ag would want to effectively encourage livestock abuse. Comparing shaming big ag over livestock abuse to burning crops is quite the bit of hyperbole.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Saturday May 30 2015, @05:49PM
If laws are written by the highest bidder. Then the societal foundation for following them is eroded and thus void. The respect will likely be out of the equation.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by W. Smith on Saturday May 30 2015, @06:21PM
America, the best democracy money can buy.
Banning people from recording crime because it makes the criminals look bad. The mind boggles.