4 ms·

There is legitimate public interest as these sites are key components of the food production system. The point that the OP was intentionally making is that the

There is legitimate public interest as these sites are key components of the food production system. The point that the OP was intentionally making is that the government (via GOP leadership, apparently) has specifically excused itself from creating such an inspection scheme and done so in a way that seems comprehensive enough to understand the alternative paths "guerilla ... activist" scientists could even potentially report on such a matter.

marcoperaza 10y ago
That the government is failing to investigate something cannot be a license to trespassing or lying your way to a private investigation. If you want government action on something, then you have to win in the political process. Taking matters into your own hands and assuming the powers reserved for the government is not acceptable. =================== Replying to swashek below since I'm rate-limited: what are you talking about "thought crime"? None of the laws here concern thought or the freedom to publish your thoughts. They ban conducting suriptitious investigations on farms, which necessarily involves either trespassing or deceit in gaining access (e.g. an activist getting himself hired as an employee)
- swasheck 10y ago
  Where do you see ANYthing about trespassing, and how do you interpret ANYthing that either I or the OP stated as condoning it? It was simply stated that trespassing is clearly defined as illegal. Lobbyists have cornered winning in the political process so all we have is our voice, which it sounds like you're trying to take away. Even as a country of laws (which I support), you still have to be able to admit that said laws are absurd when they are, in fact, absurd. This goes beyond absurd and endangers the populace. You seem more interested in ensuring that we definitively prosecute thought crimes rather than work to change the system which, at face value, appears to place the government as accessories to the wrongful deaths of many of its citizens (keeping focus on this particular topic). As such, doesn't OP have the right to criticize and suspect the government, especially when the government is ostensibly blockading one of those "inalienable rights" of "life ..." Keep shilling, though!
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    This comment was fine-ish up until that last line. Please edit it away. I don't think that the person you're replying to is suggesting that the law should remain as-is. Rather, he's suggesting that the law should be modified via the established political processes for doing so. I'm not sure where you're getting the "thought crime" thing -- even if he supported the ag-gag laws, it wouldn't be thought crime to say so, and he wouldn't be accusing others of thought crime by saying so. This is simply called a "disagreement". It doesn't need to be dramatized. Of course OP has a right to criticize and suspect the government. Who said he didn't? That doesn't mean OP has the right to disregard property boundaries or to enter a private premises under false pretenses, even if the stated intent is to "prove antibiotics in farm animals are causing human superbugs". If one believes that the local trespassing laws should be modified to accommodate persons acting in this particular public interest, he should contact his local representatives, or, alternately, run against them and lead the charge himself. It is probably much easier to convince someone in one of the several government bureaucracies to open an investigation than to get a special exception to trespassing laws codified.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

marcoperaza 10y ago

That the government is failing to investigate something cannot be a license to trespassing or lying your way to a private investigation. If you want government action on something, then you have to win in the political process. Taking matters into your own hands and assuming the powers reserved for the government is not acceptable. =================== Replying to swashek below since I'm rate-limited: what are you talking about "thought crime"? None of the laws here concern thought or the freedom to publish your thoughts. They ban conducting suriptitious investigations on farms, which necessarily involves either trespassing or deceit in gaining access (e.g. an activist getting himself hired as an employee)

swasheck 10y ago
Where do you see ANYthing about trespassing, and how do you interpret ANYthing that either I or the OP stated as condoning it? It was simply stated that trespassing is clearly defined as illegal. Lobbyists have cornered winning in the political process so all we have is our voice, which it sounds like you're trying to take away. Even as a country of laws (which I support), you still have to be able to admit that said laws are absurd when they are, in fact, absurd. This goes beyond absurd and endangers the populace. You seem more interested in ensuring that we definitively prosecute thought crimes rather than work to change the system which, at face value, appears to place the government as accessories to the wrongful deaths of many of its citizens (keeping focus on this particular topic). As such, doesn't OP have the right to criticize and suspect the government, especially when the government is ostensibly blockading one of those "inalienable rights" of "life ..." Keep shilling, though!
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  This comment was fine-ish up until that last line. Please edit it away. I don't think that the person you're replying to is suggesting that the law should remain as-is. Rather, he's suggesting that the law should be modified via the established political processes for doing so. I'm not sure where you're getting the "thought crime" thing -- even if he supported the ag-gag laws, it wouldn't be thought crime to say so, and he wouldn't be accusing others of thought crime by saying so. This is simply called a "disagreement". It doesn't need to be dramatized. Of course OP has a right to criticize and suspect the government. Who said he didn't? That doesn't mean OP has the right to disregard property boundaries or to enter a private premises under false pretenses, even if the stated intent is to "prove antibiotics in farm animals are causing human superbugs". If one believes that the local trespassing laws should be modified to accommodate persons acting in this particular public interest, he should contact his local representatives, or, alternately, run against them and lead the charge himself. It is probably much easier to convince someone in one of the several government bureaucracies to open an investigation than to get a special exception to trespassing laws codified.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]