Judge rules Utah law banning undercover farm filming is unconstitutional(ksl.com)
ksl.com
Judge rules Utah law banning undercover farm filming is unconstitutional
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=44934322&nid=148&title=judge-strikes-down-utah-law-banning-undercover-farm-filming
94 comments
> The meat processing industry is still extremely insulated, but let's hope this gets chipped away to reveal their secrets.
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
There are few people outside the health care system who will not be traumatised by watching a surgery.
There are few people outside abbatoirs (or indeed inside them) who can watch animals being slaughtered and butchered without emotional trauma.
Sometimes things are hidden from us to protect us from harm.
There are few people outside abbatoirs (or indeed inside them) who can watch animals being slaughtered and butchered without emotional trauma.
Sometimes things are hidden from us to protect us from harm.
The meat industry isn't a person, it's an industry. It shouldn't be able to hide practices that endanger human health and safety. This isn't a privacy issue, this is about protecting the ability of whistleblowers to speak out.
Devil's advocate from the other side: commercial farming and animal slaughter is a messy, ugly business to a lot of people. You could easily film an ethical operation and edit in such a way that people are shocked (shocked!!) that their steaks had eyes and felt pain.
So even without "human health and safety concerns", there are valid reasons for not showing graphic details.
That said, I absolutely think enforcing ethical animal treatment through public pressure on factory farming trumps right-not-to-know.
So even without "human health and safety concerns", there are valid reasons for not showing graphic details.
That said, I absolutely think enforcing ethical animal treatment through public pressure on factory farming trumps right-not-to-know.
None of those arguments really wash. If an industry depends on hiding its typical (or even exemplary!) operations from the general public, because of fear that people might not buy the industry's products if they knew what was involved in its production, that only builds the case for making sure the public knows what's going on. That reaction is basically proof that something the public is interested in, is being hidden.
The public interest absolutely trumps some sort of business-model protection. In fact the only exclusions I can think of to that involve trade secrets provisions, but typically there IIRC there are fairly narrow definitions of what can be protected.
The public interest absolutely trumps some sort of business-model protection. In fact the only exclusions I can think of to that involve trade secrets provisions, but typically there IIRC there are fairly narrow definitions of what can be protected.
If people aren’t comfortable watching animals being slaughtered maybe they shouldn’t eat them.
I'm not comfortable watching people changing adult diapers, but I'll visit a nursing home.
I'm not comfortable watching people be killed, but I'll celebrate American Independence Day.
I'm not comfortable with watching surgery, but I'll undergo surgery.
There are loads of things I benefit from that I don't enjoy watching.
EDIT: FYI, I have butchered pigs, chickens, and rabbits.
I'm not comfortable watching people be killed, but I'll celebrate American Independence Day.
I'm not comfortable with watching surgery, but I'll undergo surgery.
There are loads of things I benefit from that I don't enjoy watching.
EDIT: FYI, I have butchered pigs, chickens, and rabbits.
Would you undergo surgery if there was a more comfortable option with equivalent or better results?
Yes.
People should know how the meat industry works but this reasoning seems extreme.
I am not comfortable watching women give birth, that doesn't mean I shouldn't have children.
I am not comfortable watching women give birth, that doesn't mean I shouldn't have children.
I think this is confusing the availability of video with the forced viewing of video.
If you're not comfortable watching a woman give birth, you can choose to avoid the many thousands of available videos. You don't have that option with factory farming methods.
Nobody wants to watch animals being slaughtered on an assembly line, but they should absolutely have the option to see what happens with their food. I don't think there's any moral room for "It would be disgusting and probably harm their business, so we shouldn't film it."
If you're not comfortable watching a woman give birth, you can choose to avoid the many thousands of available videos. You don't have that option with factory farming methods.
Nobody wants to watch animals being slaughtered on an assembly line, but they should absolutely have the option to see what happens with their food. I don't think there's any moral room for "It would be disgusting and probably harm their business, so we shouldn't film it."
There might be a frequency issue here ;)
[deleted]
I believe exacerbating information asymmetry about exchange goods and services is anathema to free exchange goods and services.
I understand my comment was ambiguous; I meant that this was an appropriate time to say that if the industry has nothing to hide it has nothing to fear.
> The meat industry isn't a person, it's an industry
I don't know what that means. "Industry" is people doing the same thing. Doesn't matter if it's one software programmer or one farmer or a bunch of them.
I don't know what that means. "Industry" is people doing the same thing. Doesn't matter if it's one software programmer or one farmer or a bunch of them.
Thanks for sharing, SHARK is amazing
This is great news for those that try to work to improve conditions for farm animals. Collecting this footage is already risky as it is (violent retribution is not unheard of), but remains a crucial tool in convincing people that factory farming (ie, more than ~95% of animal agriculture in the US) continues to treat animals brutally and inhumanely.
Besides that, if some business doesn't want to show you something, it's usually a big red flag that everyone should know about it. Business are not people, they don't have genitals to hide, they should have as little privacy as it's commercially and ethically viable.
Isn't trespassing, regardless of what you do once you are on private property without permission, already illegal? The video would just be evidence of the crime the person doing the filming committed by being there in the first place. It seems silly that there would need to be a separate law for this.
>Isn't trespassing, regardless of what you do once you are on private property without permission, already illegal?
In most states you have to follow pretty strict rules around how and what you post in regards to no trespassing signs - and a failure to properly post is an automatic granting of rights to the property. Furthermore they'd likely have trouble actually following the letter of the law given the amount of "unknown" people that need to go in and out of the farm on a daily basis for deliveries/etc.
In other words - if you've got 30 truck drivers a day coming and going, and you haven't given each and every one explicit permission to enter your "private property", you likely have no grounds to sue the person you didn't want there. There is no concept of assumed rights that I can find in Montana law.
http://codes.findlaw.com/mt/title-45-crimes/mt-code-ann-sect...
In most states you have to follow pretty strict rules around how and what you post in regards to no trespassing signs - and a failure to properly post is an automatic granting of rights to the property. Furthermore they'd likely have trouble actually following the letter of the law given the amount of "unknown" people that need to go in and out of the farm on a daily basis for deliveries/etc.
In other words - if you've got 30 truck drivers a day coming and going, and you haven't given each and every one explicit permission to enter your "private property", you likely have no grounds to sue the person you didn't want there. There is no concept of assumed rights that I can find in Montana law.
http://codes.findlaw.com/mt/title-45-crimes/mt-code-ann-sect...
well, a violation of a minor law as a necessary step to stop bigger and much severe crime ... Or imagine somebody is having what looks like a heart attack and is falling onto a somebody's lawn, ie. private property, from the sidewalk - stepping onto the lawn to help would technically be the crime of trespassing, wouldn't it?
Actually, there are protections built into the our system of justice for incidental violations of the law like this where there was no criminal intent. Killing someone with your car is a potential violation of a whole host of serious statutes - potentially all the way up to first degree murder. But if it is determined to be an accident and there aren't other factors (intoxication, extreme negligence, etc.)...you cannot be prosecuted for that.
Some of them trespass, yes, but most of the filming is done from the outside using a powerful zoom lens, or from a drone, or more commonly, by an employee with access to the property.
Right, but what I was referring to was this:
The Utah Legislature approved a bill in 2012 that made it a class B misdemeanor to trespass on private livestock or poultry operations and record sound or images without the owner's permission.
So this particular law seems like a solution without a problem, given that trespassing for any reason is already illegal.
The Utah Legislature approved a bill in 2012 that made it a class B misdemeanor to trespass on private livestock or poultry operations and record sound or images without the owner's permission.
So this particular law seems like a solution without a problem, given that trespassing for any reason is already illegal.
In the statute, actually they specifically list reasons that make your presence a trespass.
https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter6/76-6-S206.html?v=...
Entering property for just any reason doesn't count as trespass... you need to have some sort of malicious intent, and stay despite being reasonably warned (including by signs or a fence) that your presence is not welcome.
https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter6/76-6-S206.html?v=...
Entering property for just any reason doesn't count as trespass... you need to have some sort of malicious intent, and stay despite being reasonably warned (including by signs or a fence) that your presence is not welcome.
[deleted]
If i understand correctly it's not that it wasn't illegal before, rather it wasn't a class B misdemeanor. I'm not a lawyer though.
It is already illegal, but now you can be charged with more offenses than before. Also, the penalty may possibly be higher than for trespassing (didn't check if it's true).
It seems to be a common thing in the US. In similar way, IIRC some states have laws which make it a separate crime to use a firearm to murder someone or federal telecommunication law apparently penalizes using telco networks for obscenity and harassment which is something Title II Net Neutrality opponents like to complain about.
It seems to be a common thing in the US. In similar way, IIRC some states have laws which make it a separate crime to use a firearm to murder someone or federal telecommunication law apparently penalizes using telco networks for obscenity and harassment which is something Title II Net Neutrality opponents like to complain about.
Many undercover films are made by people who have the landowners permission to be on the property.
And isn't trespass a civil law thing, rather than a criminal law thing? So this law created a criminal component that could be charged.
And isn't trespass a civil law thing, rather than a criminal law thing? So this law created a criminal component that could be charged.
Trespassing is a criminal offense in the same vein as breaking and entering.
What is everyone talking about, this is good; free speech is a crucial part of our democracy.
you can put up no trespassing signs, thats legitimized. Encroaching on free speech however is not.
you can put up no trespassing signs, thats legitimized. Encroaching on free speech however is not.
I'm a Utahn, have lived next to several farms/butcher operations, and have slaughtered my own animals.
I don't understand how trespassing on other people's property could be anything but illegal.
Yes, yes, I've heard the retoric that the industry has bad guys and bad guys don't have rights. (So stop using encryption all you bad people!)
But that can't be the real reason, right? The KSL article is pretty brief. Anyone know the reason it was ruled that trespassing isn't trespassing if it's on a farm?
I don't understand how trespassing on other people's property could be anything but illegal.
Yes, yes, I've heard the retoric that the industry has bad guys and bad guys don't have rights. (So stop using encryption all you bad people!)
But that can't be the real reason, right? The KSL article is pretty brief. Anyone know the reason it was ruled that trespassing isn't trespassing if it's on a farm?
Trespassing is illegal. I don't think that's what the judge ruled on. If someone trespasses, they should be penalized for trespassing.
Ag-gag laws are usually pretty different - they basically constitute prior constraint of free speech.
Ag-gag laws are usually pretty different - they basically constitute prior constraint of free speech.
> The Utah Legislature approved a bill in 2012 that made it a class B misdemeanor to trespass on private livestock or poultry operations and record sound or images without the owner's permission. It also prohibited seeking employment with the intent of making those recordings. Leaving a recording device for that purpose was a class A misdemeanor. The law did not criminalize the possession or distribution of unlawful recordings, but focused on trespassing and filming while on the property, according to the state.
Ah. So I infer "trespass on private livestock or poultry operations" is still illegal, but the other formely prohibited actions are now okay.
Ah. So I infer "trespass on private livestock or poultry operations" is still illegal, but the other formely prohibited actions are now okay.
Can anyone explain the justification for not recording? I can only see positive things come out of it.
From the article, "addressing perceived threats to the state agricultural industry". In other words, the justification is nothing more than "protecting powerful corporate interests takes precedence over individual rights".
You don't in general have a right to trespass, or break-and-enter, and record what you find.
Trespassing and breaking-and-entering were and are still illegal. Ag gag laws went way beyond that; which is why they're unconstitutional.
That's quite the unsupported claim, which is why I wish I could find the decision. Enhancing penalties in certain situations is incredibly common, even with respect to trespassing - trespassing in certain industrial facilities, or in connection with a conspiracy, or involving breaking and entering, all have increased penalties. I don't really see the rationale for not being able to extra-criminalize trespassing for the purposes of recording (regardless of how advisable it is) when there is no right to record entirely private activity in the first place.
In general, application of law must be blind to speech. Yes, trespassing with intent to burgle could lawfully have a greater penalty. Trespassing while shouting "Trump has tiny hands" cannot. This is what "free speech and equal protection" means, and the courts have decided that this applies here.
Wouldn't the limit be that you said something? Eg. if I come into your home and yell something loudly enough to wake you up and destroy your nights sleep, then that should have a higher penalty than just coming into your home?
What? That's among the weirdest approaches to justifying restrictions on speech I've heard, and it'd be used to ridiculous end if any court took that position.
I mean, I could claim anything upset me enough to cause me to lose sleep, couldn't I? I'm feeling pretty upset right now that someone could say something like what you've said, in fact. I might not be able to sleep knowing there are folks who feel that way.
And, that is effectively what these laws are about; the industrial agriculture industry wants to be completely free from criticism and free from being seen committing crimes. They already have the protection of the law when it comes to breaking and entering, trespassing, etc. They want law that goes beyond that and shields them from any criticism. Which is not a right we in the US have; we can sue for libel, but we cannot demand that people not say true things about us that are unflattering or upsetting to us.
I mean, I could claim anything upset me enough to cause me to lose sleep, couldn't I? I'm feeling pretty upset right now that someone could say something like what you've said, in fact. I might not be able to sleep knowing there are folks who feel that way.
And, that is effectively what these laws are about; the industrial agriculture industry wants to be completely free from criticism and free from being seen committing crimes. They already have the protection of the law when it comes to breaking and entering, trespassing, etc. They want law that goes beyond that and shields them from any criticism. Which is not a right we in the US have; we can sue for libel, but we cannot demand that people not say true things about us that are unflattering or upsetting to us.
No. Regulations on speech are not as easy to justify and enforce as regulations on other actions, because of the First Amendment.
Given that you're all over this thread, do you have any connections in the farm industry? Or is this just an issue that you randomly feel strongly about?
The decision is here: https://www.scribd.com/document/353199724/U-S-District-Judge...
Trespassing is already a crime. It doesn't need to be a double-secret crime just because industrial farmers are afraid of what the trespassers might discover.
Not only that, ag-gag laws forbid someone with legitimate access from recording crimes. So trespassing isn't necessarily involved.
Money.
Would you want someone secretly taking video of the most embarrassing, context-free 5 minutes they could find of your job, and invoking a mob to attack you on that basis?
These environments, or disrupting their operations because you're trying to get a sweet shot, can be legitimately dangerous. Discouraging people from trespassing in search of publicity could certainly constitute a rational basis for such a law.
It's a neat trick to ask what possible justification there could be and then downvote the explanation.
These environments, or disrupting their operations because you're trying to get a sweet shot, can be legitimately dangerous. Discouraging people from trespassing in search of publicity could certainly constitute a rational basis for such a law.
It's a neat trick to ask what possible justification there could be and then downvote the explanation.
When that five horrible minutes involves feeding live male chicks into a grinder, or spraying water up the nose of a downer cow to get it to go to slaughter (and be made into people food)? Yes, I think there's a legitimate public right to know.
> the most embarrassing, context-free 5 minutes they could find of your job
The five minutes a day I spend trying to quit vim?
The five minutes a day I spend trying to quit vim?
When your job is, eg, slaughtering pigs, or swearing at engines, or dealing with abusive customers (or abusive editors I suppose), you might reconsider.
Swearing at engines isn't illegal or morally reprehensible. Animal abuse is.
[deleted]
People wouldn't be as upset if this were just "5 minutes" or just happening at one place. It's systemic and widespread, and for more people to know that it is indeed systemic and widespread, more investigation and exposés are required (even if the abusing parties don't like it). Otherwise people just brush it off saying "this is one isolated instance", "it's just two different places" and all sorts of excuses to avoid confronting the truth.
Besides the welfare of the animals, this is also important to the food safety and health of society to have clear insight into how food is produced.
We call it health inspectors and what they do and check is not a secret at all. Everybody can ask them about their job.
It actually isn’t important that society have clear insight into how food is produced. What is important is that government enforced the health and safety regulations.
Does the public have the right to see the inside of the Boeing design lab? The Ford assembly line? How about a livestream of code being written that runs medical equipment?
The public doesn’t have a “right” to see that.
The militant vegan crowd would have the most humane slaughter in the history of the world featuring a cow that lived to a ripe old age eating nothing but grass imported from a Swiss meadow while listening to the soothing acoustic tunes of John Mayer – and they’d still portray that as if it were an ISIS beheading. Because they have an agenda and it isn’t “safety.”
The FDA and the Department of Agriculture have the job to ensure health and safety. Are we making an argument that they are failing? Based on population size and geographical size, the US has a very safe food supply.
These documentaries aren’t about food safety, let’s not be naïve.
Does the public have the right to see the inside of the Boeing design lab? The Ford assembly line? How about a livestream of code being written that runs medical equipment?
The public doesn’t have a “right” to see that.
The militant vegan crowd would have the most humane slaughter in the history of the world featuring a cow that lived to a ripe old age eating nothing but grass imported from a Swiss meadow while listening to the soothing acoustic tunes of John Mayer – and they’d still portray that as if it were an ISIS beheading. Because they have an agenda and it isn’t “safety.”
The FDA and the Department of Agriculture have the job to ensure health and safety. Are we making an argument that they are failing? Based on population size and geographical size, the US has a very safe food supply.
These documentaries aren’t about food safety, let’s not be naïve.
Yet it is interesting that the undercover Planned Parenthood video guys where prosecuted. I am curious if the same sort of activists that applaud this decision also support anti-Planned Parenthood filmers.
The cynic in me would offer that very few activists actually care about free speech – only that their speech is free. It might seem that we are all hypocrites to some degree.
The cynic in me would offer that very few activists actually care about free speech – only that their speech is free. It might seem that we are all hypocrites to some degree.
>“The public knows the real criminals are Planned Parenthood and their business partners,” Daleiden said.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/03/29/felony...
Abortions are not illegal in the US, nor is receiving a medical consultation on an abortion. The Planned Parenthood video guys weren't exposing a crime.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/03/29/felony...
Abortions are not illegal in the US, nor is receiving a medical consultation on an abortion. The Planned Parenthood video guys weren't exposing a crime.
It seems strange to me that agriculture should be treated differently than any other industry.
Right. If criminalizing exposure of animal abuse in agriculture is okay, what's next? Extension of the "protection" to equestrian trainers, animal testing by pharma, and puppy mills?
microtherion(1)
[deleted]
Why not just put cameras in farm equipment and tell everyone straight up they are being filmed? No need for creeping around
Reporting on legal decisions is garbage when it doesn't even include the name of the case, or better a pointer to the opinion, so I can read the ruling myself.
But it seems tenuous to me to claim that the state can criminalize trespassing, but not trespassing for the purposes of X, or conspiring to trespass to commit X, regardless of X.
But it seems tenuous to me to claim that the state can criminalize trespassing, but not trespassing for the purposes of X, or conspiring to trespass to commit X, regardless of X.
> "But it seems tenuous to me to claim that the state can criminalize trespassing, but not trespassing for the purposes of X, or conspiring to trespass to commit X, regardless of X."
In this case, X is speech protected by the First Amendment. The state cannot make "trespassing for the purposes of making legal speech" a worse crime than trespassing in general.
In this case, X is speech protected by the First Amendment. The state cannot make "trespassing for the purposes of making legal speech" a worse crime than trespassing in general.
The law isn't about trespassing.
The case is 2:13-cv-00679-RJS
How is it ever legal to break into a business's property and secretly video the operations? You surely can't sneak into a factory and record their processes to sell to China. Is it only allowed when it's being used for protesting, not for stealing IP? Or only on farms but not in factories? What about trespass law? Non-disclosure agreements for employees? Are those invalid?
It isn't. Ag-gag laws extend the scope of, or punishment for, trespass with intent to record video of agricultural operations. That is what the courts have found to violate free speech and equal protection.
It is as if states enacted laws against graffiti bearing a particular political or religious message, with either a greater punishment, or broader definition of "graffiti", than existing graffiti laws. Yes, graffiti is already illegal; yet these laws clearly violate free speech and equal protection, since the punishment is different based on what message you are trying to convey with the graffiti.
It is as if states enacted laws against graffiti bearing a particular political or religious message, with either a greater punishment, or broader definition of "graffiti", than existing graffiti laws. Yes, graffiti is already illegal; yet these laws clearly violate free speech and equal protection, since the punishment is different based on what message you are trying to convey with the graffiti.
FTA, it sounds like this law was too vague and was being leveraged to go after people, recording from "a public street."
>The Utah case, filed by animal-rights groups, was the first lawsuit in the U.S. to challenge one of the ag-gag laws. It came after a woman was charged in 2013 when she filmed a front-end loader dumping a sick cow outside a suburban Salt Lake City slaughterhouse. The case was dismissed because she was standing on a public street when she made the recording.
>The Utah case, filed by animal-rights groups, was the first lawsuit in the U.S. to challenge one of the ag-gag laws. It came after a woman was charged in 2013 when she filmed a front-end loader dumping a sick cow outside a suburban Salt Lake City slaughterhouse. The case was dismissed because she was standing on a public street when she made the recording.
Presumably this just means that the filming isn't illegal; it doesn't mean actions taken to film are no longer subject to statutes. You can still be charged with trespassing, just not trespassing + filming.
The judge explained it thus:
>In short, the cases cited by the State answer the question of whether a landowner can remove someone from her property or sue for trespass even when the person wishes to exercise First Amendment rights. And generally, as the cases make clear, the answer is yes. But that is not the question before the court. The question here is whether the State (not a private landowner) can prosecute (not sue for damages) a person based on her speech on private property. [...]
> In sum, the fact that speech occurs on a private agricultural facility does not render it outside First Amendment protection. Nobody disputes that owners of an agricultural facility can immediately remove from the property any person speaking in ways the owners find objectionable. But if the State wants to criminalize the same speech, it must justify the law under the First Amendment.
>In short, the cases cited by the State answer the question of whether a landowner can remove someone from her property or sue for trespass even when the person wishes to exercise First Amendment rights. And generally, as the cases make clear, the answer is yes. But that is not the question before the court. The question here is whether the State (not a private landowner) can prosecute (not sue for damages) a person based on her speech on private property. [...]
> In sum, the fact that speech occurs on a private agricultural facility does not render it outside First Amendment protection. Nobody disputes that owners of an agricultural facility can immediately remove from the property any person speaking in ways the owners find objectionable. But if the State wants to criminalize the same speech, it must justify the law under the First Amendment.
Legality and the morality of the times may be different species, but speaking only on the latter, would you say the same thing about people who do undercover investigations in other areas (like sweat shops, child labor and many other things that most people would agree as unethical)? Shouldn't it be the law that should catch up?
BTW, I found your question objective and productive for discussion as evidenced by the responses.
It's unfortunate that you got downvoted.
It's unfortunate that you got downvoted.
The meat processing industry is still extremely insulated, but let's hope this gets chipped away to reveal their secrets. This is one of the reasons undocumented immigrant labor is exploited: they generally won't say anything.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/21/us/meatpackers-profits-hin...
http://www.meatpoultry.com/articles/news_home/Business/2013/...
See also: SHowing Animals Respect and Kindness (SHARK) to see what happens to those whom film use drones to legally film live caged animal shoots and other embarrassing/horrible human-animal interactions. http://sharkonline.org/