ag gag laws

[Pure]

'ag gag' laws have been proposed in several states, including florida and minnesota. the FL bill is reproduced below. if you take a picture of a farm or its animals without the owner's permission, you commit a felony. for the MN bill, if a news organization publishes the picture, they are guilty as well. note that the prohibited act does NOT necessarily involve trespass.

undercover videos of hog operations have made it to youtube, and whistle blowers' videos have often caused animal cruelty investigations to be made.

while these bills so far have NOT passed the legislatures, i foresee them being re introduced. i'm reminded of Chinese laws that prescribe if you take pictures within a factory or farm, and publish them, you can be charged with maliciously starting a rumor.

July 5, 2011, 11:19 pm

Banned From the Barn

By MARK BITTMAN

Mark Bittman

Iowa’s ag-gag law failed to pass before summer recess last week: a good thing. The ridiculous proposition, which died along with similar ones in Minnesota, Florida and New York, would have made it illegal to videotape or photograph in the agricultural facilities that house almost all of our chickens and pigs.
[...]

When a journalist can’t see how the food we eat is produced, you don’t need ag-gag laws. The system’s already gagged.

=======
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=6684&pst=1506651

Debbie J.

Florida “Ag Gag” Bill Fails

May 13, 2011 7:39 PM

Bill to prohibit photographing farms is dead

Investigation after investigation by The Humane Society of the United States and other animal protection groups document egregious acts of animal cruelty in our nation's factory farms and slaughter plants.

The agribusiness industry has responded to these exposés not with efforts to root out such animal cruelty, but rather with bills to prevent Americans from finding out about that cruelty in the first place. In three states—Florida, Iowa, and Minnesota—the industry has introduced legislation to ban whistle-blowing at factory farms by making it a crime merely to take photos or video of what's happening inside these facilities.
===

http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/cleanplatecharlie/2011/05/peta_animal_cruelty_farm_photo_bill.php

====

Florida Senate - 2011 SB 1246

By Senator Norman

12-01071A-11 20111246__

1 A bill to be entitled
2 An act relating to farms; prohibiting a person from
3 entering onto a farm or photographing or video
4 recording a farm without the owner’s written consent;
5 providing a definition; providing penalties; providing
6 an effective date.
7
8 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
9
10 Section 1. (1) A person who enters onto a farm or other
11 property where legitimate agriculture operations are being
12 conducted without the written consent of the owner, or an
13 authorized representative of the owner, commits a felony of the
14 first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083,
15 or s. 775.084, Florida Statutes.

16 (2) A person who photographs, video records, or otherwise
17 produces images or pictorial records, digital or otherwise, at
18 or of a farm or other property where legitimate agriculture
19 operations are being conducted without the written consent of
20 the owner, or an authorized representative of the owner, commits
21 a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s.
22 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, Florida Statutes.

23 (3) As used in this section, the term “farm” includes any
24 tract of land cultivated for the purpose of agricultural
25 production, the raising and breeding of domestic animals, or the
26 storage of a commodity.
27 Section 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2011.
====

minnnesota bill at
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H1369.0.html&session=ls87

 

[bronzeage]

If this is an attempt to keep farm photos out of the public eye, it has backfire written all over it. If it ever went to trial, the photos and videos are evidence and would be exhibited in court.

Could a US judge preside over a trial and keep the evidence concealed from the jury or the public?

 

[Stella_Omega]

If this is an attempt to keep farm photos out of the public eye, it has backfire written all over it. If it ever went to trial, the photos and videos are evidence and would be exhibited in court.

Could a US judge preside over a trial and keep the evidence concealed from the jury or the public?

Defense Of Marriage (sic) have gagged the proceedings or the prop8 trial and kept the transcripts from the public. I don't know if that's the same thing.

 

[stephen55]

There are some times when I believe that America is totally fucked in the head. At other times I merely think you are fucked.

Don't your politicians have better things to do?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Well, yes, they do but they won't.

 

[bronzeage]

Defense Of Marriage (sic) have gagged the proceedings or the prop8 trial and kept the transcripts from the public. I don't know if that's the same thing.

That is interesting. Access to evidence and testimony is sometimes restricted in order to protect the rights of the defendant. I don't see how this applies to a civil case where a law is challenged in court.

If the aim of this "ag gag" bil is to keep the spot light off of ranching operations, a trial based on the law is the last thing they would want.

If a person observed objectionable practices first hand and then stood on a soap box on the Court House steps and denounced the rancher, no court in the land could touch him. In the US, the truth is always a defense against a charge of libel. It may be perfectly legal to chop off the beaks of baby chickens, but if that's what you are doing, you can't stop people from talking about it.

The question becomes a contest between free speech and privacy. The way I read this bill, a person could take photos from a public right of way and still be in violation. Prosecution of this kind of case would be a prosecutor's nightmare. The bill specifically states "legitimate agriculture
operations" The rancher could be put in a position of proving his operation was in full compliance with all laws. Who wants that burden?

It would be different if people did this sort of thing in order to damage a competitor or gain some kind of market advantage, but animal welfare activists have a history of little regard for their own welfare. A trial would become instant martyrdom for the defendant and more public attention than they could buy at any price.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

If this is an attempt to keep farm photos out of the public eye, it has backfire written all over it. If it ever went to trial, the photos and videos are evidence and would be exhibited in court.

Could a US judge preside over a trial and keep the evidence concealed from the jury or the public?

This has nothing to do with keeping evidence from a jury. It is an attempt to keep people like Michael Moore from making a high profile documentary exposing the industry.

 

[Boxlicker101]

There are some times when I believe that America is totally fucked in the head. At other times I merely think you are fucked.

Don't your politicians have better things to do?

Of course not. They get paid tons of money from agribusiness, and there is nothing more important to them than that. (Except getting reelected, of course.)

 

[bronzeage]

This has nothing to do with keeping evidence from a jury. It is an attempt to keep people like Michael Moore from making a high profile documentary exposing the industry.

That was not my point. The bill is an attempt to prevent this kind of evidence from existing, and a trial just draws attention to it. A person could not be convicted with this bill, unless the photos were produced in court.

Defense attorney: You say the defendant took photos of your sheep. Where are these photos.
Witness for the prosecution: I can't show them to you.
Defense attorney: And yet you expect the jury to believe they exist?

Of course, this is an anti-Michael Moore bill. What else could it be?

As if Michael Moore would be intimidated by free publicity on every network for a couple weeks.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I also believe this would be overturned in the courts. It literally violates the first amendment. I'm on public land, I take a picture, I post the picture on the internet, I'm arrested for expressing my first amendment rights.

Who thinks up this shit anyway?

 

[TE999]

These bills are a over-reaction to the complaints of animal 'rights' activists who view circuses, rodeos, testing labs, zoo's, pony rides and performing animal shows as abusing them. There are already laws on the books about abusing animals, but the activists carry percieved abuse to rediculous extremes. Most people don't really care how a food animal is treated, they just want the meat.

That being said, these proposed laws are both unconstitutional and stupid, and there is no way they will ever pass.

 

[Boxlicker101]

These bills are a over-reaction to the complaints of animal 'rights' activists who view circuses, rodeos, testing labs, zoo's, pony rides and performing animal shows as abusing them. There are already laws on the books about abusing animals, but the activists carry percieved abuse to rediculous extremes. Most people don't really care how a food animal is treated, they just want the meat.

That being said, these proposed laws are both unconstitutional and stupid, and there is no way they will ever pass.

I agree the proposed laws are an over-reaction and that they are unconstitutional, but I believe they are in response to journalistic exposes of cruelty committed against farm animals. I have seen videotapes of some of these, probably the worst of them, and they are pretty brutal.

I disagree with the methods of PETA and similar groups, but I somewhat agree with some of their goals. I also don't like the idea of unnecessary cruelty to anything or anybody, except serial killers and rapists. The abuse I refer to is strictly gratituitous and illegal, but the farm owners and the legislators they control don't like it being noised around to the general public.

Even so, there are better ways to prevent the cruelty, such as firing the sadists, than trying to shoot the messengers.

 

[Pure]

it's odd that the cruelty issue is so predominant, here. surely the issue of safety of food supply is a main factor. do you want meat from a pig raised, crowded with a thousand others in a barn, ankle deep in his shit, full of antibiotics to keep him from getting sick, etc.

zeb and TE are right to draw attention to the freedom issues, both of speech and press. they way the laws are phrased, if i DRIVE by farmer Jones' front pasture and see some emaciated cows and take their picture, i've committed a crime. and of course what the drafters of the law want, is that once in possession of the picture, if i show it to the authorities, they are to say to me, YOU are the criminal here.

it occurs to me that "farmers" (agribusiness) are asking that farms be treated like defense installations. if you bring out a camera, the 'security' forces come after you. if you have picture of certain items, you can be prosecuted, even more so if you disseminate them (because the enemy will see them).

 

[Zeb_Carter]

it's odd that the cruelty issue is so predominant, here. surely the issue of safety of food supply is a main factor. do you want meat from a pig raised, crowded with a thousand others in a barn, ankle deep in his shit, full of antibiotics to keep him from getting sick, etc.

zeb and TE are right to draw attention to the freedom issues, both of speech and press. they way the laws are phrased, if i DRIVE by farmer Jones' front pasture and see some emaciated cows and take their picture, i've committed a crime. and of course what the drafters of the law want, is that once in possession of the picture, if i show it to the authorities, they are to say to me, YOU are the criminal here.

it occurs to me that "farmers" (agribusiness) are asking that farms be treated like defense installations. if you bring out a camera, the 'security' forces come after you. if you have picture of certain items, you can be prosecuted, even more so if you disseminate them (because the enemy will see them).

Ah yes...National Security...yet you can see pictures of Area 51 online any time you choose. And if you know where to look you can get, in most cases up to date satellite images of any US air base in the world. From Google map and Google Earth.

So far I haven't heard of anyone going to jail yet. I do know the government tried to get sat images of Area 51 suppressed, but they failed or backed off.

 

[Boxlicker101]

it's odd that the cruelty issue is so predominant, here. surely the issue of safety of food supply is a main factor. do you want meat from a pig raised, crowded with a thousand others in a barn, ankle deep in his shit, full of antibiotics to keep him from getting sick, etc.

zeb and TE are right to draw attention to the freedom issues, both of speech and press. they way the laws are phrased, if i DRIVE by farmer Jones' front pasture and see some emaciated cows and take their picture, i've committed a crime. and of course what the drafters of the law want, is that once in possession of the picture, if i show it to the authorities, they are to say to me, YOU are the criminal here.

it occurs to me that "farmers" (agribusiness) are asking that farms be treated like defense installations. if you bring out a camera, the 'security' forces come after you. if you have picture of certain items, you can be prosecuted, even more so if you disseminate them (because the enemy will see them).

Sanitation is an issue, but I think it is mostly cruelty. A picture of pigs living in the conditions you describe would be gross, but a videotape of a man kicking a cow who is imprisoned in a milking stall is much more dramatic.

If such a law were to actually be passed, it might backfire. Some of the best commercials for dairies and other farms are of happy animals grazing in the fields, and these might be illegal also. Of course, I would expect such pictures to be excluded from the ban.

 

[Pure]

some video clips

meet your meat, narrated by alec baldwin.

http://www.peta.org/tv/videos/celebrities-vegetarianism/87206203001.aspx