14 ms·

State law: You can't say bad things about a business

135 points by puppetmaster3 11y ago

mc32 11y ago
This is about North Carolina's extreme position. I think the title should indicate that. That said, one would hope this gets overturned as it basically wants to keep all the dirty laundry in any industry out of scope for whistle blowers by exposing whistleblowers to fines of up to 5000/day of recording activities. That's chilling.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  It's kind of stunning that the legislature overrode the governor's veto. People yell and scream about campaign finance being a problem in the US, I'm starting to think the bigger problem is that parties have set themselves up to have advantages getting people on ballots. In Michigan (where I live), party backed candidates have a substantially easier time getting on ballots (they only need 1/2 the signatures on the relevant petitions) and there are term limits on state representatives, so party leaders and "Lansing bureaucrats" end up having a lot of influence on what happens at the state level. Say some district had an independent rep that they really liked. By state law, they can only send them to do their business for a couple of terms, then the parties get their chance to stand up a patsy (<--I'm a little cynical I guess).
  - tamana 11y ago
    This is the strongest argument against term limits: it biases teams of warm bodies over individuals.
bovermyer 11y ago
I highly doubt this law will survive for long. However, that it (and laws like it) was actually considered seriously enough to pass brings up big questions about the character of those lawmakers who voted for it. Here's a link to the actual text of the bill: http://www.ncleg.net/Applications/BillLookUp/LoadBillDocument.aspx?SessionCode=2015&DocNum=5076&SeqNum=0 http://www.ncleg.net/Applications/BillLookUp/LoadBillDocumen... Pay particular attention to section b paragraph 2.
- michael_h 11y ago
  "duty of loyalty to the employer" Wow. That's quite the one-way street.
otterley 11y ago
I imagine these laws eventually will be overturned by the Supreme Court as contrary to the First Amendment. It involves punishment of core political speech, so it should be a relatively open-and-shut case. The strongest argument in favor of the Constitutionality of these laws is that they are outlawing speech that could not have been made but for the violation of another law (i.e. common trespass and/or contract breach), but I'd be very surprised if the laws survived on those grounds. Newsgathering is often performed by trespassing, even newsgathering that's been previously upheld by the Court (e.g. Pentagon Papers, in which the author had unlawful access to classified materials).
- rileymat2 11y ago
  >violation of another law (i.e. common trespass and/or contract breach) I thought breaching a contract was not a violation of the law. There will be civil consequences of course.
  - tamana 11y ago
    Civil law is law.
    - pc86 11y ago
      Breaching a contract does not make you a criminal.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        That doesn't mean it is not a violation of law, it means that it is not a crime. Crimes are subset of violations of law (specifically, they are violations of criminal law.) Violations of contract law, or tort law, etc., are still violations of law, but not crimes. "X doesn't make you a criminal" is not equivalent to, nor does it imply, "X is not a violation of law."
      - cyphar 11y ago
        It is technically correct to say "breach of contract is not a crime". But it isn't correct to say that "breach of contract is not illegal".
LinuxBender 11y ago
Does this prevent someone from blowing the whistle anonymously? Isn't there some risk in forcing people to be anonymous? e.g. I know I can't go to the government for help, so I have to post something on WikiLeaks instead?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
heapcity 11y ago
Maybe this law could protect lawyers, like those exposed on 60 minutes this week, from further sting operations on their money laundering business.
- nefitty 11y ago
  Was just listening to the podcast audio last night. A casual perusal of the connections between the business world and politics (especially local political leaders) would reveal the extreme conflicts of interest in cases such as these. These people aren't protecting anonymous "businesses" or a disembodied "economy", they're protecting their friends, and many times themselves.
- uremog 11y ago
  Better call Saul!
cwbrandsma 11y ago
The Idaho law was struck down already. It was a "knee-jerk reaction" bill that the governor pushed thru as quickly as possible (when the video of Bettencourt's place came out, he was getting death threats). But everyone knew the law wouldn't last long.
elchief 11y ago
This just makes North Carolina look like a backwards plutocratic sh*thole.
rrggrr 11y ago
If you can contractually give up your right to a jury trial, or to a trial at all (eg. binding mediation clause), why can't you contractually give up your right to free speech.
- patmcc 11y ago
  You can give up your right to bring a civil suit, it doesn't impact your right to a jury in a criminal trial. That's a very important difference.
- michaelmrose 11y ago
  I don't believe you ought to be able to give up either.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Why not contractually give up rights to privacy, freedom, and all the rest? The problem here is that you can't contractually give up your right to a jury trial and that the courts act as if you can is a travesty to justice.
cmurf 11y ago
These practices should be completely exposed because they're dead-end businesses. There really should only be expensive meat from ethically treated animals raised on small farms for sale. And instead of investing money in shutting people up, the money should be invested in growing meat without animals, as the competition with the small farms. These giant agribusinesses are terrible. It's dark comedy how "modern" agriculture insists upon the necessity of cruelty to animals as a business right, compared to how animals are raised and slaughtered in 3rd world countries today, and actually for most of human history. We're so completely stupid, and these companies just want to protect that stupidity and ignorance for profit.
- blacksmith_tb 11y ago
  I agree almost completely, but I think it's not adequate to simply point the finger at the producers, but also at the consumers, who demand prices so low that callous cruelty is essentially guaranteed. Of course, overall, we're mishandling resources massively to channel agricultural output into livestock, we need to actively reward eating less meat, rather than subsidizing ever more of it.
  - tcfunk 11y ago
    Yes, definitely. It was unfortunate that the recent Dietary Guidelines issued by the USDA did not include more meat-related stipulations. Not that the USDA report is the end-all-be-all, but I do think it has substantial power over the decisions we (Americans in general) make at the grocery store.
  - cmurf 11y ago
    Yes, consumers are stupid, but ignorance is bliss and they like it this way. Put all the pro capital punishment people into a room and ask them to vote on a law requiring public executions in the town square and oh, no we don't want that, we like state sponsored murder to be behind closed doors, the children after all! Etc. It's a defect in our culture. We're babies. We don't like the reality of some of our choices, it causes cognitive dissonance, so we just white wash reality, and bad mouth the people who try to point to reality, just to coddle the ignorant. And now they don't have to think about it, AND OH MY GOD IT'S ALL SO MUCH BETTER WITH BACON!
strommen 11y ago
The partisan politics on this issue are pretty interesting. The NC governor (who unsuccessfully vetoed this law) is a Republican. But Republicans in the state legislature voted[1] 67-3 to override the veto. Democrats voted 33-12 to uphold it. [1]: http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/voteHistory/RollCallVoteTranscript.pl?sSession=2015&sChamber=H&RCS=677 http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/voteHistory/RollCallVoteTrans...
hodgesrm 11y ago
An interesting question is where the NYT and NC Democrats stand on analogous exposes of Planned Parenthood.[1] If exposing evil Ag businesses is OK, what's the difference if somebody feels the same about any clinic that performs abortion? From a free speech perspective it's hard to see the distinction. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/us/with-planned-parenthood-videos-activist-ignites-abortion-issue.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/us/with-planned-parenthood...
- pessimizer 11y ago
  Has anyone said that doing exposes on planned parenthood should be illegal? I didn't see that in the reference, and without that, no, it's really not an interesting question.
  - hodgesrm 11y ago
    Yes, the folks who did the PP videos are being prosecuted as well as sued. [1] [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/us/2-abortion-foes-behind-planned-parenthood-videos-are-indicted.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/us/2-abortion-foes-behind-...
    - ubernostrum 11y ago
      They weren't indicted for publishing a story. They weren't indicted for writing or producing a story. They were indicted for doing illegal things to try to obtain information to use in their story. In a similar way, someone trying to do an exposé by breaking into a business' office at night to steal records would be subject to criminal prosecution -- not for the story, but for the tactics used to obtain information for the story. (and of course the same grand jury also returned no indictment of Planned Parenthood on the claims made in the story, but either way illegal tactics to obtain information are illegal)
- SwellJoe 11y ago
  The difference there is that the videos told an entirely fabricated story. Treating this as merely a partisan issue is misdirection. The people who made the anti-abortion video in question broke a variety of laws (unrelated to whistle-blowing), and made up a narrative that was completely at odds with reality. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-plannedparenthood-texas-idUSKCN0V32QD http://www.reuters.com/article/us-plannedparenthood-texas-id... On the other hand, the videos and documentation that ag-gag laws are intended to outlaw are videos that are merely displaying the illegal/unethical behavior of factory farms; they outlaw (or attempt to outlaw, as they may not hold up in court) protected free speech. If someone were to break a variety of laws unrelated to whistle-blowers and fabricate stories about factory farms, then you could compare it to that anti-abortion video.
dsmithatx 11y ago
The fine is $5000 per day of recording. I'm fairly certain that any TV show/movie using this material will not have much issue with $5000.
- jjulius 11y ago
  But they wouldn't necessarily be the target of the fine. The individual who actually recorded the footage would be the likely target of the lawsuit, and in many cases that person could be operating either alone, or for an advocacy group that might not have much funding to cover such fines.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
I say we get as many people as possible to botcott companies in such states. Also, send them a letter saying they did, tell them how much the competition is making on the new business, and say that continues until the law is repealed. Make it impact their numbers until companies push (or pay) lawmakers to reverse it. Or don't and better areas prosper.

135 points by puppetmaster3 11y ago

mc32 11y ago

This is about North Carolina's extreme position. I think the title should indicate that. That said, one would hope this gets overturned as it basically wants to keep all the dirty laundry in any industry out of scope for whistle blowers by exposing whistleblowers to fines of up to 5000/day of recording activities. That's chilling.

maxerickson 11y ago
It's kind of stunning that the legislature overrode the governor's veto. People yell and scream about campaign finance being a problem in the US, I'm starting to think the bigger problem is that parties have set themselves up to have advantages getting people on ballots. In Michigan (where I live), party backed candidates have a substantially easier time getting on ballots (they only need 1/2 the signatures on the relevant petitions) and there are term limits on state representatives, so party leaders and "Lansing bureaucrats" end up having a lot of influence on what happens at the state level. Say some district had an independent rep that they really liked. By state law, they can only send them to do their business for a couple of terms, then the parties get their chance to stand up a patsy (<--I'm a little cynical I guess).
- tamana 11y ago
  This is the strongest argument against term limits: it biases teams of warm bodies over individuals.

bovermyer 11y ago

I highly doubt this law will survive for long. However, that it (and laws like it) was actually considered seriously enough to pass brings up big questions about the character of those lawmakers who voted for it. Here's a link to the actual text of the bill: http://www.ncleg.net/Applications/BillLookUp/LoadBillDocument.aspx?SessionCode=2015&DocNum=5076&SeqNum=0 http://www.ncleg.net/Applications/BillLookUp/LoadBillDocumen... Pay particular attention to section b paragraph 2.

michael_h 11y ago
"duty of loyalty to the employer" Wow. That's quite the one-way street.

otterley 11y ago

I imagine these laws eventually will be overturned by the Supreme Court as contrary to the First Amendment. It involves punishment of core political speech, so it should be a relatively open-and-shut case. The strongest argument in favor of the Constitutionality of these laws is that they are outlawing speech that could not have been made but for the violation of another law (i.e. common trespass and/or contract breach), but I'd be very surprised if the laws survived on those grounds. Newsgathering is often performed by trespassing, even newsgathering that's been previously upheld by the Court (e.g. Pentagon Papers, in which the author had unlawful access to classified materials).

rileymat2 11y ago
>violation of another law (i.e. common trespass and/or contract breach) I thought breaching a contract was not a violation of the law. There will be civil consequences of course.
- tamana 11y ago
  Civil law is law.
  - pc86 11y ago
    Breaching a contract does not make you a criminal.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      That doesn't mean it is not a violation of law, it means that it is not a crime. Crimes are subset of violations of law (specifically, they are violations of criminal law.) Violations of contract law, or tort law, etc., are still violations of law, but not crimes. "X doesn't make you a criminal" is not equivalent to, nor does it imply, "X is not a violation of law."
    - cyphar 11y ago
      It is technically correct to say "breach of contract is not a crime". But it isn't correct to say that "breach of contract is not illegal".

LinuxBender 11y ago

Does this prevent someone from blowing the whistle anonymously? Isn't there some risk in forcing people to be anonymous? e.g. I know I can't go to the government for help, so I have to post something on WikiLeaks instead?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

heapcity 11y ago

Maybe this law could protect lawyers, like those exposed on 60 minutes this week, from further sting operations on their money laundering business.

nefitty 11y ago
Was just listening to the podcast audio last night. A casual perusal of the connections between the business world and politics (especially local political leaders) would reveal the extreme conflicts of interest in cases such as these. These people aren't protecting anonymous "businesses" or a disembodied "economy", they're protecting their friends, and many times themselves.
uremog 11y ago
Better call Saul!

cwbrandsma 11y ago

The Idaho law was struck down already. It was a "knee-jerk reaction" bill that the governor pushed thru as quickly as possible (when the video of Bettencourt's place came out, he was getting death threats). But everyone knew the law wouldn't last long.

elchief 11y ago

This just makes North Carolina look like a backwards plutocratic sh*thole.

rrggrr 11y ago

If you can contractually give up your right to a jury trial, or to a trial at all (eg. binding mediation clause), why can't you contractually give up your right to free speech.

patmcc 11y ago
You can give up your right to bring a civil suit, it doesn't impact your right to a jury in a criminal trial. That's a very important difference.
michaelmrose 11y ago
I don't believe you ought to be able to give up either.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
Why not contractually give up rights to privacy, freedom, and all the rest? The problem here is that you can't contractually give up your right to a jury trial and that the courts act as if you can is a travesty to justice.

cmurf 11y ago

These practices should be completely exposed because they're dead-end businesses. There really should only be expensive meat from ethically treated animals raised on small farms for sale. And instead of investing money in shutting people up, the money should be invested in growing meat without animals, as the competition with the small farms. These giant agribusinesses are terrible. It's dark comedy how "modern" agriculture insists upon the necessity of cruelty to animals as a business right, compared to how animals are raised and slaughtered in 3rd world countries today, and actually for most of human history. We're so completely stupid, and these companies just want to protect that stupidity and ignorance for profit.

blacksmith_tb 11y ago
I agree almost completely, but I think it's not adequate to simply point the finger at the producers, but also at the consumers, who demand prices so low that callous cruelty is essentially guaranteed. Of course, overall, we're mishandling resources massively to channel agricultural output into livestock, we need to actively reward eating less meat, rather than subsidizing ever more of it.
- tcfunk 11y ago
  Yes, definitely. It was unfortunate that the recent Dietary Guidelines issued by the USDA did not include more meat-related stipulations. Not that the USDA report is the end-all-be-all, but I do think it has substantial power over the decisions we (Americans in general) make at the grocery store.
- cmurf 11y ago
  Yes, consumers are stupid, but ignorance is bliss and they like it this way. Put all the pro capital punishment people into a room and ask them to vote on a law requiring public executions in the town square and oh, no we don't want that, we like state sponsored murder to be behind closed doors, the children after all! Etc. It's a defect in our culture. We're babies. We don't like the reality of some of our choices, it causes cognitive dissonance, so we just white wash reality, and bad mouth the people who try to point to reality, just to coddle the ignorant. And now they don't have to think about it, AND OH MY GOD IT'S ALL SO MUCH BETTER WITH BACON!

strommen 11y ago

The partisan politics on this issue are pretty interesting. The NC governor (who unsuccessfully vetoed this law) is a Republican. But Republicans in the state legislature voted[1] 67-3 to override the veto. Democrats voted 33-12 to uphold it. [1]: http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/voteHistory/RollCallVoteTranscript.pl?sSession=2015&sChamber=H&RCS=677 http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/voteHistory/RollCallVoteTrans...

hodgesrm 11y ago

An interesting question is where the NYT and NC Democrats stand on analogous exposes of Planned Parenthood.[1] If exposing evil Ag businesses is OK, what's the difference if somebody feels the same about any clinic that performs abortion? From a free speech perspective it's hard to see the distinction. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/us/with-planned-parenthood-videos-activist-ignites-abortion-issue.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/us/with-planned-parenthood...

pessimizer 11y ago
Has anyone said that doing exposes on planned parenthood should be illegal? I didn't see that in the reference, and without that, no, it's really not an interesting question.
- hodgesrm 11y ago
  Yes, the folks who did the PP videos are being prosecuted as well as sued. [1] [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/us/2-abortion-foes-behind-planned-parenthood-videos-are-indicted.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/us/2-abortion-foes-behind-...
  - ubernostrum 11y ago
    They weren't indicted for publishing a story. They weren't indicted for writing or producing a story. They were indicted for doing illegal things to try to obtain information to use in their story. In a similar way, someone trying to do an exposé by breaking into a business' office at night to steal records would be subject to criminal prosecution -- not for the story, but for the tactics used to obtain information for the story. (and of course the same grand jury also returned no indictment of Planned Parenthood on the claims made in the story, but either way illegal tactics to obtain information are illegal)
SwellJoe 11y ago
The difference there is that the videos told an entirely fabricated story. Treating this as merely a partisan issue is misdirection. The people who made the anti-abortion video in question broke a variety of laws (unrelated to whistle-blowing), and made up a narrative that was completely at odds with reality. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-plannedparenthood-texas-idUSKCN0V32QD http://www.reuters.com/article/us-plannedparenthood-texas-id... On the other hand, the videos and documentation that ag-gag laws are intended to outlaw are videos that are merely displaying the illegal/unethical behavior of factory farms; they outlaw (or attempt to outlaw, as they may not hold up in court) protected free speech. If someone were to break a variety of laws unrelated to whistle-blowers and fabricate stories about factory farms, then you could compare it to that anti-abortion video.

dsmithatx 11y ago

The fine is $5000 per day of recording. I'm fairly certain that any TV show/movie using this material will not have much issue with $5000.

jjulius 11y ago
But they wouldn't necessarily be the target of the fine. The individual who actually recorded the footage would be the likely target of the lawsuit, and in many cases that person could be operating either alone, or for an advocacy group that might not have much funding to cover such fines.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

I say we get as many people as possible to botcott companies in such states. Also, send them a letter saying they did, tell them how much the competition is making on the new business, and say that continues until the law is repealed. Make it impact their numbers until companies push (or pay) lawmakers to reverse it. Or don't and better areas prosper.