3 ms·
You don't in general have a right to trespass, or break-and-enter, and record what you find.
by 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 agoTrespassing 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 agoThat'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 agoGiven 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 agoThe 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...
- colanderman 9y agoIn 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.
- tomjen3 9y agoWouldn'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?
- wtallis 9y agoNo. Regulations on speech are not as easy to justify and enforce as regulations on other actions, because of the First Amendment.
- SwellJoe 9y agoWhat? 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.
- kibwen 9y agoTrespassing 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.
- sitkack 9y agoNot only that, ag-gag laws forbid someone with legitimate access from recording crimes. So trespassing isn't necessarily involved.