3 ms·

Thought the same thing. Different state, but a TX judge ruled very, very similar action against PP a crime. Others who say "they told a false story" should re

Thought the same thing. Different state, but a TX judge ruled very, very similar action against PP a crime. Others who say "they told a false story" should realize that's a matter of perspective. I'm sure there are those who say the videos depicting cruel treatment of animals are "edited to convey something different from reality". This logic would also apply to every Michel Moore "documentary" ever.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Different state, but a TX judge ruled very, very similar action against PP a crime. No, the indictments against the video makers weren't for anything analogous to what "ag-gag" laws address; the indictments were for criminal violations of generally-applicable laws that apply whether or not a video is being made and whether or not the purpose of the act is to present information about a particular business: they were for falsifying government documents with intent to defraud, and for violating a law prohibiting offers to purchase human organs. This is very different from laws which directly prohibit actions because they are taken to publicize (whether accurately or in a distorted manner) what a business is doing. This is just saying that an intent to make a video doesn't exempt you from generally applicable criminal laws.