7 ms·

Can anyone explain the justification for not recording? I can only see positive things come out of it.

arthur_trudeau 9y ago
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.
- kibwen 9y ago
  > the most embarrassing, context-free 5 minutes they could find of your job The five minutes a day I spend trying to quit vim?
  - arthur_trudeau 9y ago
    When your job is, eg, slaughtering pigs, or swearing at engines, or dealing with abusive customers (or abusive editors I suppose), you might reconsider.
    - colanderman 9y ago
      Swearing at engines isn't illegal or morally reprehensible. Animal abuse is.
      - GauntletWizard 9y ago
        Valuing the lives of animals over people is morally reprehensible. Which is why I suggest eating vegans.
        asciimo 9y ago
        I don't understand your point. No human lives would be endangered by sparing the lives of other animals.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- URSpider94 9y ago
  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.
- newscracker 9y ago
  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.
kibwen 9y ago
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".
- arthur_trudeau 9y ago
  You don't in general have a right to trespass, or break-and-enter, and record what you find.
  - SwellJoe 9y ago
    Trespassing and breaking-and-entering were and are still illegal. Ag gag laws went way beyond that; which is why they're unconstitutional.
    - arthur_trudeau 9y ago
      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.
      - ewjordan 9y ago
        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?
      - URSpider94 9y ago
        The decision is here: https://www.scribd.com/document/353199724/U-S-District-Judge-Robert-Shelby-s-ruling-on-Utah-s-Ag-gag-laws#from_embed https://www.scribd.com/document/353199724/U-S-District-Judge...
spodek 9y ago
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.

kibwen 9y ago
> the most embarrassing, context-free 5 minutes they could find of your job The five minutes a day I spend trying to quit vim?
- arthur_trudeau 9y ago
  When your job is, eg, slaughtering pigs, or swearing at engines, or dealing with abusive customers (or abusive editors I suppose), you might reconsider.
  - colanderman 9y ago
    Swearing at engines isn't illegal or morally reprehensible. Animal abuse is.
    - GauntletWizard 9y ago
      Valuing the lives of animals over people is morally reprehensible. Which is why I suggest eating vegans.
      - asciimo 9y ago
        I don't understand your point. No human lives would be endangered by sparing the lives of other animals.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
URSpider94 9y ago
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.
newscracker 9y ago
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.

kibwen 9y ago

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".

arthur_trudeau 9y ago
You don't in general have a right to trespass, or break-and-enter, and record what you find.
- SwellJoe 9y ago
  Trespassing and breaking-and-entering were and are still illegal. Ag gag laws went way beyond that; which is why they're unconstitutional.
  - arthur_trudeau 9y ago
    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.
    - ewjordan 9y ago
      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?
    - URSpider94 9y ago
      The decision is here: https://www.scribd.com/document/353199724/U-S-District-Judge-Robert-Shelby-s-ruling-on-Utah-s-Ag-gag-laws#from_embed https://www.scribd.com/document/353199724/U-S-District-Judge...

spodek 9y ago

Money.