43 ms·

Taping of Farm Cruelty Is Becoming the Crime

717 points by praptak 14y ago

hmottestad 14y ago
I love these short pieces on stupid legislation in the land of the free. Makes me so happy I don't live there. Who in their right mind would even propose such legislation. What kind of immoral, capitalistic people are in charge in the US.
- Gravityloss 14y ago
  These things have happened elsewhere. In Finland in 2011, a district attorney prosecuted animal farm videographers that had taken video in 2007 and 2009. Most of the claims did not hold in court.
  - unclebucknasty 14y ago
    Yes, but if legislation lije this passes in the U.S., these claims will hold in court here.
    - jrockway 14y ago
      Yes, I'm sure the Supreme Court will uphold prior restraint laws. The problem is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt as we wait for the case to make it there.
      - wnight 14y ago
        If we jailed the supporters of the bill for knowingly trying to pass unconstitutional law it might even happen less. But unless we do that they'll just have passed another corrupt law by the time this one gets overturned.
  - ptaipale 14y ago
    Though they were not prosecuted for just taking video. The claim that did hold was for a felony that roughly translates to breaking and entering. For some other claims (like defamation in case of claiming that farm A does what was filmed at farm X), it was not possible to prove who did what, so it fell apart. Some indecent farming was exposed, which is good. On the other hand, I understand that people are not entirely comfortable about groups of masked men appearing on their premises at night, premises near which their families live.
- xradionut 14y ago
  "What kind of immoral, capitalistic people are in charge in the US."? Darwinist capitalistic people. It's the invisible hand of evolution in action.
  - vanderZwan 14y ago
    That's satire, right? You're mocking Friedman, right? Because at this point I honestly can't tell any more in discussions on this topic.
  - aaronblohowiak 14y ago
    I think you, like many people, are conflating Darwin with Malthus.
    - xradionut 14y ago
      Not really, I'm mixing a sci-fi meme with my observations of much of the "fk you elite". I've had the opportunity to live alongside and work with. Many of them truly believe that their gaming of the system, luck and hard work is either divine or a product of "dog eat dog" evolution-style aka "hussle". I've got shocking stories of outrageous actions, but the long term economic trends/facts are sobering.
  - crusso 14y ago
    I love how people try to blame Capitalism for the problems caused by Statism and Cronyism.
    - king_jester 14y ago
      OK, I'll bite. How exactly is the state in fault here? Private businesses and farms in the agriculture and livestock industry cheap out on labor and labor practices on purposes to make extra profit. I am aware of federal and state subsidies for such businesses, but even without such subsidies you will see this kind of skimping on labor costs and facilities that encourage this kind of cruelty.
- ianstallings 14y ago
  Somewhere long ago before my time society "decided" that the merchant class was above all others. And we have suffered ever since.
- mercurial 14y ago
  > What kind of immoral, capitalistic people are in charge in the US. People who know where the funding for the next electoral campaign vote comes from. It's a free market: as a voter, you're the product, the corporations are the customers.
  - locopati 14y ago
    You say this as if treating elections and voting as a market should be acceptable.
    - mercurial 14y ago
      I don't. I'm just calling a spade a spade. Not to say this is the case with all lawmakers, but corporations have much more influence over politics than they ought to, especially in the US (or so it seems as a European)
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  Newsflash: it's extraordinarily unlikely that you live in a country with stronger protection of freedom of speech than the US. In fact, if you live in Europe you almost certainly don't.
  - hmottestad 14y ago
    Any references?
    - dagw 14y ago
      References to what? The fact that Europe has lots of laws restricting free speech?
      - hmottestad 14y ago
        Europe has almost no laws. We are not like the US. The EU does enforce a bunch of laws. So does the EEA. So I would like a good example of a law from a european country that is not the UK or eastern europe.
        ubernostrum 14y ago
        Try publishing information about a criminal trial, or about an auction of WWII memorabilia, in "almost no laws" places like France or Germany, and let me know how it goes.
        sergiosgc 14y ago
        Criminal trials, in much of Europe, are protected by privacy of justice laws, until the proceedings are complete. Then, the information is free. I view that as a good thing, as it prevents mob justice on the media. Let the courts decide, on their own timing, we can analyse the result later; instead of condemning someone in the public view, only to find out later she is an innocent with a forever tarnished reputation.
- locusm 14y ago
  "What kind of immoral, capitalistic people are in charge in the US?" The Lesters of course. http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_t...
  - hmottestad 14y ago
    Yes. I saw that one just yesterday :D He makes great points, but his presentation makes me feel like I've walked into an appliance store and the salesman is trying to convince me to buy the most expensive fridge in the shop.
  - unclebucknasty 14y ago
    Funny. That TED Talk is sponsored by Goldman Sachs.
- jasonlotito 14y ago
  > Who in their right mind would even propose such legislation. The Swiss. They lost.
- sultezdukes 14y ago
  Who's this - the ghost of Hugo Chavez gracing us with his presence? What kind of immoral, capitalistic people are in charge in the US The kind of people that don't throw you in jail if you just deny something in public, like in Germany, France, Canada.
  - nullymcnull 14y ago
    Canada jailing people for 'just denying something'? Do tell.
    - gyardley 14y ago
      He's probably referring to the Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel. If I recall he spent quite a bit of time in jail in Canada for publishing his stuff, although I'm not sure his convictions stuck on appeal. After Zundel was finally deported to Germany (he was never a Canadian citizen), the Germans locked him up pretty promptly.
- rayiner 14y ago
  There are 300m people in the US and any one of them can propose a law.
  - hmottestad 14y ago
    In this case: "But a dozen or so state legislatures have had a different reaction: They proposed or enacted bills that would make it illegal to covertly videotape livestock farms..."
  - sophistroll 14y ago
    Ridiculous. Are you implying I have the same legislative power as the agriculture lobbies?
    - rayiner 14y ago
      I'm saying you don't need a lobby when you have millions of farmers who identify politically and culturally with big agriculture and part time state legislators who are often farmers themselves. My wife grew up in Iowa farm country. You don't need a lobby to convince these people that animal rights activists are terrorists.
      - wnight 14y ago
        Oh I see. When someone threatens your wallet it's now socially acceptable to cry "terrorist". You're a perfect example of what the OP was talking about. Justifying every abomination.
        rayiner 14y ago
        I'm not justifying anything. I'm explaining. People in farm country: 1) constantly feel threatened due to the fickle nature of farming and thus are culturally very tight (even to the point of embracing agribusiness as "one of them"; 2) are insular and fairly culturally homogenous (my wife went to a high school with a graduating class of 60 people); 3) have a very different relationship with animals than people on the coasts. Animal rights activism is so outside the mainstream of their experience, that it doesn't take a huge lobby to convince them that these video tapers are one step away from blowing up farms. More broadly, they perceive the movement, like movements to control farm pollution, in terms of their own experience. Not as a cool cost-benefit calculation, but an existential threat to their way of life. That is not to say that they support animal cruelty per se. They react badly to what they perceive to be external threats. They rally around their own. They are really no different than any other group of people in this regard (see, e.g., how Hacker Newsers rally around their own any time people propose regulating tech companies; note the complete lack of moral outrage at Intel, AMD, Hewlett-Packard, etc, in the recent article about how these companies poisoned Palo Alto).
johndavidback 14y ago
As a US citizen, this scares the crap out of me. If the government is actively and publicly preventing people from exposing rampant crime, it speaks volumes. At least if they were trying to be covert or slick about it, it implies they know what they are doing is wrong.
- ianstallings 14y ago
  They just rammed a bill through congress to make Monsato above the law. They have drones scouring the globe for vans filled with people they can drop bombs on if they think they may associate with "bad" people. If you talk about it you're a conspiracy theorist. Which means you go onto a list. Gotta watch what you're doing now. They try to disarm the public in the name of safety while arming themselves to the teeth and solving every problem they have with the threat of violence. Think this is crazy talk? Well that's my point. It's become crazy to even mention some things. Frankly, the stuff is getting outright creepy and they better be careful because they are playing with fire.
  - thisone 14y ago
    I find this bit to be on the 'oh-please' side of crazy: >They try to disarm the public in the name of safety while arming themselves to the teeth and solving every problem they have with the threat of violence. because I have a friend who used this basic argument to say gun control increases the likelihood of a nuclear strike on DC by North Korea.
    - hmottestad 14y ago
      People with big guns always say they are trying to make peace. Doesn't mean that trying to make peace is a bad thing. And by "disarm" I presume in the terms of rights/finances/influence....rather than literally in terms of guns.
    - ianstallings 14y ago
      Well is it not the truth? The US has the world's most heavily armed police forces. Their military makes others look quaint. They have military actions going on today right now all over the world. They always need more $ to continue the violence. Yet they claim that violence is wrong. It's really no wonder we're like a bunch of crazy people. The simple fact is uncle sam solves every problem with violence so I'm not surprised when it's citizens act the same way.
TomGullen 14y ago
"One of the group’s model bills, “The Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act,” prohibits filming or taking pictures on livestock farms to “defame the facility or its owner.” Violators would be placed on a “terrorist registry.”" This sounds like a line out of some futuristic dystopian film
- egeozcan 14y ago
  To me, it sounds as if it's taken from George Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four."
  - mhaymo 14y ago
    Animal Farm also comes to mind, but that's awfully literal.
- hmottestad 14y ago
  Terrorist?? Sounds like fun. "Sorry mum. I can't come home for thanks giving cause I filmed a guy burn pigs alive and now I'm on the no fly list"
- goatforce5 14y ago
  "What are you in for?" "Terrorism" "How many people did you kill?" "I filmed some chickens."
- IheartApplesDix 14y ago
  Not sure what this is showing up on HN now. The law has been on the books since 2011. We should be more interested in the new law That just granted legal immunity to Monsanto.
  - ryankshaw 14y ago
    what law are you talking about? I'd be intrested to learn more. can you provide a source / links?
    - 14y ago
TomGullen 14y ago
Can't the people filming the cruelty just re-brand themselves as undercover journalists and get all the protection journalists receive?
- gambiting 14y ago
  You can't just "brand" yourself a journalist. You need a licence and accreditation.
  - TomGullen 14y ago
    I wasn't aware that was the case, can't anyone be a self proclaimed investigative journalist?
    - gambiting 14y ago
      You can write articles, but you don't get all the laws protecting journalists without getting a licence first. And even then, you usually need to be working for a press agency to get all privileges, you don't get all of them by being a freelancer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_pass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_pass
      - mnutt 14y ago
        The top-level comment is proposing using journalism as a defense against prosecution, not trying to secure press passes to go into the farms and film. A press pass is not a license. Of the court cases I remember, most used a number of factors to determine whether or not the defendant qualified as a journalist.
        gambiting 14y ago
        It's more a question of whatever journalist-protecting laws should apply to you in a certain situation, not whatever you are a journalist or not. Conducting successful surgery does not make you a doctor, a proper licence does.
yuvadam 14y ago
This is nothing but plutocracy fighting its final battle. No one is actually suggesting that animal cruelty is OK. But when documenting such (immoral, mind you) acts raises awareness that eventually harms business, in the meat and dairy industry in this case, then big money raises its head in the form of legislation that favors the $$$. We see the same pattern when hackers are cast as the new terrorists.
- pm24601 14y ago
  "final battle" ? Not hardly. This continues to be a successful tactic of suppression
- randomdata 14y ago
  I wonder how the tech community would respond if undercover reporters were breaking into offices and documenting the "incomprehensible" C that managers are forcing down on employees when they could be purportedly writing software in English, and people stopped using software to help free the abused employees who are stuffed in a small cubicle to write nonsensical gibberish day-in, day-out? That is what this situation seems like. Animal cruelty is definitely not okay, but I have noticed a growing trend of reporting best practices, that attempt to minimize animal suffering as much as possible, as animal cruelty. And the solutions people are coming up with to improve on those best practices are as non-sensical as a non-industry expert suggesting that we write software in English. In a perfect world, sure, but the real world has real constraints. I would like to see real awareness, not people who feel they are experts on all rural affair matters after watching a two hour documentary and a YouTube clip or two. A video ban is definitely not the way to do that, but I can see the other side. Google isn't going to be too happy if you go around filming their datacenter, lamenting that you could do the same with a server in your closet at home, either.
  - carbocation 14y ago
    Not that this is really relevant to the topic at hand, but are you actually drawing an equivalency between people who get paid to write code for a living and an animal being slaughtered? I don't think the analogy works at all.
ianstallings 14y ago
There's a creepy trend going on in the world and it's always been around, but it's gaining steam - the restriction of information. Make it illegal to talk about or simply ignore it becomes the standard. "These aren't the droids you're looking for" as they speak to the world.
- coldpie 14y ago
  I disagree. I think we are trending in the opposite direction, and these kinds of bills are the "bad guys" fighting back against that progress. The Internet and computing generally have really opened the flood gates on freedom of information. We have to fight to keep making progress, but I honestly believe we're trending forward on this. It's easy to draw an analogy to another fight dear to me, gay rights in the United States. 40 years ago, there were no anti-gay constitutional amendments. Today we're seeing many states pass anti-gay constitutional amendments. Is that because we're going backwards on gay rights, or because the "bad guys" are fighting progress? I think it's clearly the latter. Don't get discouraged by losing a battle when you're winning the war :) Keep up the fight.
gerhardi 14y ago
Why did the original posting get deleted? On to the topic, this is just ridiculous, how can anyone vote for such a law?
- kristofferR 14y ago
  Yeah, I found the deletion really weird too! Good that it's back though.
- aspensmonster 14y ago
  You mean this one? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5510201 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5510201 Because mods = gods I suppose.
edw519 14y ago
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
- bjustin 14y ago
  Many states do not allow ordinary citizens to record a phone call without the consent of both parties. This seems like it would have the same kind of justification.
- carbocation 14y ago
  To crystallize the point: how is this not, on its face, textbook First Amendment material?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - jrockway 14y ago
    It's First Amendment material, and I doubt the Supreme Court will uphold any of these laws. The problem is that there will be problems for people in the years between when the laws are passed and when a good case finally makes it to the Supreme Court. (The bit about making violating your employment contract a criminal act sounds exactly like the law that makes you a criminal for violating a website's ToS. Which has pretty much been struck down. But hey, there's no penalty for passing bad laws, so why not try? It makes your handlers happy!)
    - Justsignedup 14y ago
      ...And of course if the supreme court refuses the case...
    - mtgx 14y ago
      This is what I like about other countries which have Constitutional Courts that check for the a bill's constitutionality before it's passed into law. How many years does it have to pass in US before the Patriot Act, NSL's and FISA are verified by the Supreme Court? We're already into the second decade of their existence now.
mdkess 14y ago
Why not require video cameras be installed in factory farms, and have footage independently reviewed? I feel like a lot of this abuse is due to poorly educated workers in a stressful environment and no observation.
- aegiso 14y ago
  For the same reason this law exists. Profits. Everything else be damned.
- spacemanaki 14y ago
  I just pasted this quote elsewhere in this thread but I'm going to paste it here again because it's so bold-faced. The videos may seem troubling to someone unfamiliar with farming, said Kelli Ludlum, the group’s director of Congressional relations, but they can be like seeing open-heart surgery for the first time. “They could be performing a perfect procedure, but you would consider it abhorrent that they were cutting a person open,” she said. Some of the behavior filmed is standard operating procedures, and they don't want that viewed by the otherwise ignorant public.
  - carbocation 14y ago
    And yet, in contrast, we have surgeons posting their videos for all to see on YouTube because they are proud of the work that they do and they want people to see what goes on in the OR.
    - mseebach 14y ago
      It helps that "victims" of successful surgeries end up playing catch with their kids, and not in a clearance bin in a supermarket.
  - mdkess 14y ago
    That's why I think independent reviews are better than public shaming. The untrained eye might not notice a surgeon improperly clean an instrument before surgery, but that may be the most dangerous mistake that they make - one which the trained eye would catch but the untrained would not. I do, however, think that there is real animal cruelty that is going on. How big a problem it is I don't know, but we are civilized enough that we as a society should be taking steps toward stopping it.
patrickk 14y ago
I wonder what would have happened if this kind of legislation was in place for the guy who filmed the Mitt Romney "47%" video.
- Anechoic 14y ago
  That recording was illegal: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/florida-recording-law http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/florida-recording-law
pm90 14y ago
Putting the issue of legality of such legislation aside, it kinda surprised me that the farm-owners/workers were not more concerned about the kind of cruelty going on in their property. Do these people not find the videos incredibly unsettling? How can they allow these things under their watch?
- mortov 14y ago
  I don't think you understand. Before the filming, the cruelty happened and profits were just fine. After the filming was shown, profits went down/business was lost. Clearly the problem they need to fix is to stop filming to help keep profits up and avoid losing business. Clearer now ?
- gambiting 14y ago
  I have a relative who runs a big company selling meat. He only goes to his office once per week, no need to be there any more often. Almost everything that happens in the company is dealt with by his managers, so only super-critical stuff gets through to him. I can see how a person like that can be unaware that workers in one of his slaughterhouses kick pigs in the face, he's got better things to do than look through security footage all day. And when these things happen they are dealt with by local managers there,not by him personally. Like there was a case few months back, when one of his drivers was in an accident and killed a few people, and he - as a company owner - wouldn't even know about it if the insurance company hadn't called him directly telling him that they will be paying few million out of his policy, which made him look into it. If that didn't happen, he would not even be aware of that situation.
- spacemanaki 14y ago
  At least one of the practices mentioned, de-beaking [0], is nowhere near out of the ordinary at factory hatcheries. One of the quoted lobbyists even makes the point that some of the behavior recorded is the norm, not the exception: The videos may seem troubling to someone unfamiliar with farming, said Kelli Ludlum, the group’s director of Congressional relations, but they can be like seeing open-heart surgery for the first time. “They could be performing a perfect procedure, but you would consider it abhorrent that they were cutting a person open,” she said. While some of the abuses may be unusual, I suspect the truth is that they would prefer no one tape the regular day-to-day goings on at factory farms either. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debeaking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debeaking
S4M 14y ago
Can we, as a hacker community, do something about this kind of abuse - irregardless whether taping animal cruelty becomes illegal or not? My idea would be to set up some kind of wiki leaks for those videos, where animal rights militants would be able to anonymously post their videos.
Egregore 14y ago
From original article: but they can be like seeing open-heart surgery for the first time. “They could be performing a perfect procedure, but you would consider it abhorrent that they were cutting a person open,” she said. So should we now ban the taping of heart surgery?
snarfy 14y ago
I doubt all the people signing on to this even know it's happening. American Legislative Exchange Council: http://www.alec.org/about-alec/ http://www.alec.org/about-alec/ It might help to contact your representative and let them know about this article and that you associate them to it, and to protecting animal cruelty.
gyardley 14y ago
Sure, it's a silly law, sure, it probably won't survive constitutional review, and most definitely, true cruelty to animals is a crime. But this is also a rather predictable backlash against groups who aren't looking to correct occasional violations of regulations in the meatpacking industry, but shut down the industry as a whole - devastating local communities by getting rid of a ton of low-skilled jobs. Since we're not exactly making more low-skilled jobs these days, many of the people affected will be impoverished for life, taking their towns with them. Given that, it's not at all surprising that employees, employers, and local politicians are responding very aggressively. Any industry under the same threat would respond the same way.
- hni 14y ago
  > devastating local communities by getting rid of a ton of low-skilled jobs Why would those communities be devastated? People still have to eat, hence low-skilled jobs would still be required to produce other kinds of food in the same local communities.
  - gyardley 14y ago
    Meatpacking remains labor intensive in a way that other forms of large-scale farming are not. Even if there was labor parity, they're not usually done in the same places. Meatpacking is usually done near transportation hubs, and ranching is usually on land that's not suitable for agricultural purposes.
- mistercow 14y ago
  >but shut down the industry as a whole - devastating local communities by getting rid of a ton of low-skilled jobs. The same arguments were thrown around when we were talking about abolishing slavery. The economy will adapt.
  - gyardley 14y ago
    Oh, perhaps it will. But I'm not arguing about the ability of the economy as a whole to adapt. I'm arguing that the extreme-sounding response of the meatpacking industry, which everyone in the thread is flipping out about, should be completely expected given the motives of those doing the filming, and their attitudes towards the meatpacking industry - they don't want to reform it, they want to shut it down. While economies can adapt, people and industries get left behind. Whatever you feel about meat, this is just a simple attempt on the part of an industry and its participants to defend their livelihoods, and should be understood accordingly - it's a perfectly rational act. This is so gobsmacking obvious I'm amused by the downvotes. Half the country fought a civil war in defense of slavery. Are people seriously surprised meatpackers want to criminalize a little filming in defense of their own industry?
CurtMonash 14y ago
At this point in the US, censorship laws like this usually get defeated. Fourth Amendment/privacy/etc. are the areas where I'm more worried about civil liberties. That said, the reason they get defeated is, in large part, because of the outcry when they're attempted. I don't want to minimize the need to keep fighting for freedom.
btipling 14y ago
Here's a crazy idea, stop eating meat. It's energy inefficient and cruel.
- Ygg2 14y ago
  Here's a better idea. Engineer meat from animal stem cells. More energy efficient and less cruel (although maybe less tasty). Plants take less energy but provide less energy to humans (meat is more power efficient). Think of plant and animal like 1.5V batteries vs. 3V batteries.
  - netrus 14y ago
    Well, all the power stored in your beef-battery was charged with plants ... There is some upper limit for the energy efficiency of meat, and it is below that of vegetables.
    - Ygg2 14y ago
      I think most meat has more calorie per kilogram than plants. If you could grow it without having to feed the plants to the animal it's a win-win, no?
  - btipling 14y ago
    Nope. It would require less farming to feed people than to feed animals and people to eat those animals. Energy loss is an order of magnitude. If you ate the plants instead of eating the animals eating the plants it would be more energy efficient.
    - Ygg2 14y ago
      Would it take less energy to grow meat (in lab) or grow plant?
      - btipling 14y ago
        I don't know anything about growing meat in the lab, but it doesn't sound very appealing and I've lost any desire to eat meat long ago so I don't really care either way. The theoretical potential to grow meat isn't in any way a convincing argument to make eating meat right this minute either non-cruel or energy efficient however.
lprubin 14y ago
If you eat factory farmed meat, eggs, or dairy, you are almost guaranteed to be supporting animal cruelty. There are many fantastic books and documentaries detailing the horrors and dangers of factory farming and I've linked to a few below. This is an open secret. I would be willing to bet that almost anybody here, once they've looked deeply into factory farming, would come out the other side and look at factory farmed animal products in a completely new light. Do you truly want to stop farm animal cruelty? Investigate this industry and consider no longer buying factory farmed animal products. http://www.amazon.com/Food-Inc-Participant-Industrial-Poorer-/dp/1586486942/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365429391&sr=1-1&keywords=food+inc http://www.amazon.com/Food-Inc-Participant-Industrial-Poorer... http://www.amazon.com/Eating-Animals-Jonathan-Safran-Foer/dp/0316069884 http://www.amazon.com/Eating-Animals-Jonathan-Safran-Foer/dp...
- sophistroll 14y ago
  For many, the concept "boycott meat" is even more ridiculous than the concept "animal rights". We have a very long way to go.
  - lprubin 14y ago
    Certainly, but I said nothing about boycotting meat. I said boycott factory farmed meat. Meat can be done "humanely." Seek it out and support it if you wish but it is not to be found in factory farms. Vote with your wallet.
    - sophistroll 14y ago
      I am doing this. It is difficult. And it makes restaurants suck. And let's be real, SF, Portland, etc might one day reach 50% humane meat... maybe. What's the plan for telling the "average" American that a dozen eggs cost $12? And some of them are weird colors?
      - ndespres 14y ago
        My farm-fresh dozens cost $6 in the greater NYC area. I'm only in my first year of farming as a startup but I'm finding that it is profitable and enjoyable to serve fresh, local food to people without gouging them for it.
kyrra 14y ago
This is not meant to defend cruel people, I just want to raise a few points about farms. While I have only been to small farms, I have definitely seen what some people would consider animal cruelty. But I think it's important to understand the mentality of people that work with these animals. Animals on farms are seen as property, not a pet in any way. Most owners and workers of animals distance themselves from the animals to keep themselves mentally healthy as they will be putting these animals to slaughter to sell or eat. When distance yourself from an animal, you won't be treating it as nicely as you would your family dog. When talking about farm help, they may hold a grudge against the animals they are working with. A friend would work his uncle's farm every saturday to help clean up after the pigs. His job was basically shoveling pig poop for 8 hours (or other equally not-fun jobs). It would take a day before he smelled normal again. Doing this kind of work can make some people resentful of the animals they work with. Farmers and farm help see animals as money, so they won't do anything that could jeopardize being paid (won't damage the product). When people are disconnected with the animals they are working with, it is easier for some people not to be so nice to those animals. This isn't to say that all people working with animals will be abusive towards them, but it creates an opening for those people that aren't as nice to take their anger out on the animals.
- sophistroll 14y ago
  Sounds more like you are defending hypocrites/unprincipled people. By your argument, it's more ok for me to hurt you (from whom I am distanced by the fact that we have never met) than my girlfriend. It's a question of rights, not convenience or qualifications.
- lprubin 14y ago
  As of a couple of years ago, the average job tenure of an employee working in a slaughterhouse was 6 months. Many people lasted half a day to three days. The emotional stress and trauma of witnessing living animals being put through the kind of things factory farming does to them is emotionally overwhelming to even the most hardened people. The people who have to witness that day in and day out frequently end up with extreme emotional turmoil/psychological trauma similar to PTSD and it is these traumatized employees who end enacting much of the crueler practices talked about in these videos. It's very challenging for a person to witness what goes on in a slaughterhouse and to maintain their sanity. Trying to keep the idea that these are living creatures with rights but also that it is perfectly fine for them to suffer the horrible treatment they are subjected to requires a tenuous mental gymnastics that apparently seems to break down after only a couple of months of exposure.
gizmo686 14y ago
For anyone fammilar with the US legal system, would you need to be tried for breaking this law before you can challenge it in court (where you would be on the hook for criminal penalties), or can you proactivly challenge such laws without breaking them?
- jellicle 14y ago
  Depends! In some cases, you can make the claim that a certain law is so broad and clearly unconstitutional that it affects everyone and should be struck down. The courts may accept such a case or they may say, "no, doesn't look like that to us, wait until you have someone prosecuted under this law and then come back and argue about the specific case". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_challenge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_challenge
pyre 14y ago
Even in the most extreme of cases, I don't see how claiming that A.L.F. even is a 'terrorist' organisation. Sure they 'liberate' the animals from their owners, but you don't call a burglar a terrorist. Seems these days like "breaking the law in the furtherance of a political cause" is the new definition of terrorism (rather than using violence to sow the seeds to terror), and we're creating more laws to make more terrorists. Gotta fuel the War on Terror somehow I guess...
- polymatter 14y ago
  Its worse because it trivialises actual terrorists and the people that gave their lives to protect us from them.
- DanBC 14y ago
  ALF is an umbrella term. There was an ALF press office, which would release information and propaganda. But anyone was free to perform an action and claim it for the ALF. Calling an organisation like that terrorist is problematic. But, still ... There was a campaign against department stores selling fur in the 80s / 90s. The claimed intent was to cause massive water damage from sprinkler systems. People would place incendiary devices into the pockets of clothes (one reason pockets are now stitched closed) and these devices would go off at night. Unfortunately sprinkler systems didn't go off, and stores burnt down. 'Out of hours' does not mean 'empty'; the lives of cleaners, for example, were risked by this campaign. There have been other arson campaigns against abattoirs, meat packing / distribution plants, dairies, etc. Animal rights activists have dug up corpses. There has been an extensive campaign of harassment against anyone linked to Huntingdon Life Sciences; this includes anyone providing any form of service to HLS. People think in terms of 'legitimate targets'. A company is a legitimate target. Anyone working for that company is a legitimate target. The children of, for example, a secretary working for that company are not legitimate targets. Early members of ALF got advice from IRA. Breaking the law to further a political cause is, perhaps, fine. But some of the extremes done in the name of animal rights are clearly terrorist offences.
  - pyre 14y ago
    Maybe so, but the government likes to label all animal rights activists as terrorists. Even groups like ADL whose expressed mandate is to promote animal rights via legal means. My point wasn't that all animal rights activists are angels, but moreso that there is a bias against them from government/law enforcement. Some anti-abortion activists have bombed abortion clinics, but you don't see the anti-abortion movement labelled as a bunch of terrorists.
DanielBMarkham 14y ago
I am totally for people being able to expose farm cruelty if the goal is an open debate to enact political change. I wonder, however, if sometimes people use their free speech rights to terrorize potential supporters and advocates, folks who are unfamiliar with reality and context, in order to raise money through FUD. That doesn't mean I don't support their right to free speech. Just means that the speaking part and the recording part need to be considered separately. I added that caveat because what we're going to see is all sorts of people with all kinds of interests taping things, especially with drone technology and ubiquitous surveillance. This isn't somebody writing a play, novel, or an editorial. It's somebody taking something that you thought was private and displaying it for the world to see, inside their own editorial frame. It's something we should think about carefully. While I am completely in support of MLK's right to make the speech "I have a dream", I'm not so sure I'd be in favor of somebody secretly taping him with a drone while he was creating it. And then creating their own political content around that tape. Case in point: here's an article I was going to research and rewrite last week but didn't have time. In Australia, animal activists are planning on using drones to tape farmers looking for cruelty. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/02/animal_liberation_australia_drones/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/02/animal_liberation_au... Would you want anybody with a political cause access to your property whenever they wanted to make recordings to support their political point?
lectrick 14y ago
Burying your head in the sand was always an excellent survival strategy.
joering2 14y ago
"But a dozen or so state legislatures have had a different reaction" May we know them by names? "state legislatures" is a body, not a actual person. I want to know the names so next time they knock at my door asking for a vote, I know what to say.
simonster 14y ago
As an animal researcher, I'm of two minds on this. Obviously, it's better if animal cruelty is exposed. The practices mentioned in the introduction definitely constitute cruelty. They should not be allowed to happen, and whistleblowers should be permitted to record them so that evidence may be presented in court. On the other hand, people with ties to animal rights organizations have a habit of finding animal cruelty where there is none. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Spring_monkeys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Spring_monkeys for a classic example. The pictures produced by PETA portrayed a researcher's work as an open-and-shut case of animal cruelty when, in fact, the research was scientifically justified and it was ambiguous whether there was any negligence in the way the animals were cared for.
- eltondegeneres 14y ago
  There was no doubt whether the animals subjected to unreasonable suffering. As for the question of scientific justification, there were non-animal models for neuroplasticity research available at the time. The widespread use of monkeys in neuroscience is more of a matter of convenience and entrenched interests. Just because a study produces scientific results does not mean that it is ethically valid, take the Tuskegee syphilis experiments or San Antonio Contraceptive Study for example.
  - simonster 14y ago
    This debate has been covered to death in other sources. The majority of scientists disagree with you. It might be because there is a vast conspiracy; it might because most peoples' values differ from yours; or it might be because we know neuroscience better than you do EDIT: Just to make clear, I don't want this to be taken as a wholehearted endorsement of the treatment of the animals in the Silver Springs case. There were some questionable practices. However, I feel that there was a scientific reason to be performing the general class of experiments.
    - jkn 14y ago
      Scientists who don't feel strongly about animal rights defend the position that is most convenient and efficient for them. If using a monkey instead of spending months cultivating petri dishes is easier (e.g. more deterministically successful for publication) then of course they will advocate for using the monkey. This argument leaves the animal rights activist unimpressed. In the end most animal experiments are certainly useful but few are strictly necessary. Researchers complain about all the paperwork required but I wish it was 100 times more difficult to get these experiments approved. Then people would really make sure the experiment is well thought-out and important. And I would happily delay some scientific discoveries by 50 years if that can spare a few million animals (thanks to better computer models or new noninvasive techniques)
pvaldes 14y ago
and now, for something different With the avian flu problem rising again, Maybe to keep these young activists out of the farms and safe of touching avian decays is not as bad idea as it could seem There are some risks associated to each working place, and is not very sage that any not autorized people can mess with the human food chain
Ras_ 14y ago
Unwittingly in this attempt to legislate, they might have found the best way possible to raise moral justification to do farm tapes in the first place.
marze 14y ago
They should pass a law requiring 24 hr cameras in all animal facilities broadcasting to the web. People who care could monitor the feeds. If no cruelty takes place and those who care about animals not being mistreated cover the costs, it is win win.
cpursley 14y ago
Is there a farm cruelty map? One where locations can be tagged with media, info about the farm and the farm product buyers? There should be...
MindBoozer 14y ago
I don't think anyone here has been to a farm.
- TallGuyShort 14y ago
  Wrong
will_brown 14y ago
These companies can already include non-disclosure, non-disparagement and non-circumvention provisions in their employment agreements. If an employee/undercover investigator violates those contractual terms not only could they be individually liable for damages but the organizations (news or animal rights organizations) sponsoring the undercover investigation could also be liable. Further, they can contractually prohibit employees from video recording at their place of employment - there is no need for these companies to be lobbying for criminal sanctions for this behavior.
Zimahl 14y ago
Isn't this in direct conflict with whistleblower laws? I mean, it should never be illegal to report on illegal activity. However, if PETA feels that a perfectly legal and well-maintained slaughterhouse should be taped and the 'horrors' shown, that's a different story. Just because they feel 'meat is murder' doesn't mean that it is.
- lessnonymous 14y ago
  I think that's probably at least the intention of the legislation. When PETA films some normal farm procedure, they'll add ominous music, show only the most horrid parts of whatever is happening, desaturate the pictures and tar the entire industry with being gruesome. Under 1st Amendment rights, they're allowed to do this. They're not showing anything that didn't happen so it isn't libelous. Personally I think the first amendment is out of date. The appeal to it's authority is a prime example of the Historians Fallacy[1]. In many other countries there are restrictions on speech -- and that is seen as a generally good thing. Eg. hate speech, and holocaust denial. Defamation cases are also able to hide behind the first amendment in the USA, where they cannot elsewhere. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian%27s_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian%27s_fallacy
hispanic 14y ago
If you'd like to take action against Ag-Gag, I suggest signing the petition at http://www.ag-gag.org/ http://www.ag-gag.org/. You might also want to consider subscribing to the FarmForward mailing list and/or making a donation - http://www.farmforward.com http://www.farmforward.com
aaronbrethorst 14y ago
Ah, ALEC is behind it. Color me not shocked. Here's some background: * http://swampland.time.com/2012/04/09/alec-what-it-does-and-why-three-major-corporations-cut-ties/ http://swampland.time.com/2012/04/09/alec-what-it-does-and-w... * http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-13/why-are-mcdonalds-coca-cola-and-intuit-fleeing-alec http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-13/why-are-mcdo...
michaelochurch 14y ago
This is disgusting. Apparently taping animal cruelty in order to influence economic behavior is now terrorism. This reminds me of how much of the press sat on the wiretapping scandals of 2004 because "it might be political" (meaning it might affect the election, since Bush was directly responsible). As long as the information is truthful, that's the press's fucking job! Ignorance is Strength, Freedom is Slavery, and Truth is Terrorism.

717 points by praptak 14y ago

I love these short pieces on stupid legislation in the land of the free. Makes me so happy I don't live there. Who in their right mind would even propose such legislation. What kind of immoral, capitalistic people are in charge in the US.

Gravityloss 14y ago
These things have happened elsewhere. In Finland in 2011, a district attorney prosecuted animal farm videographers that had taken video in 2007 and 2009. Most of the claims did not hold in court.
- unclebucknasty 14y ago
  Yes, but if legislation lije this passes in the U.S., these claims will hold in court here.
  - jrockway 14y ago
    Yes, I'm sure the Supreme Court will uphold prior restraint laws. The problem is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt as we wait for the case to make it there.
    - wnight 14y ago
      If we jailed the supporters of the bill for knowingly trying to pass unconstitutional law it might even happen less. But unless we do that they'll just have passed another corrupt law by the time this one gets overturned.
- ptaipale 14y ago
  Though they were not prosecuted for just taking video. The claim that did hold was for a felony that roughly translates to breaking and entering. For some other claims (like defamation in case of claiming that farm A does what was filmed at farm X), it was not possible to prove who did what, so it fell apart. Some indecent farming was exposed, which is good. On the other hand, I understand that people are not entirely comfortable about groups of masked men appearing on their premises at night, premises near which their families live.
xradionut 14y ago
"What kind of immoral, capitalistic people are in charge in the US."? Darwinist capitalistic people. It's the invisible hand of evolution in action.
- vanderZwan 14y ago
  That's satire, right? You're mocking Friedman, right? Because at this point I honestly can't tell any more in discussions on this topic.
- aaronblohowiak 14y ago
  I think you, like many people, are conflating Darwin with Malthus.
  - xradionut 14y ago
    Not really, I'm mixing a sci-fi meme with my observations of much of the "fk you elite". I've had the opportunity to live alongside and work with. Many of them truly believe that their gaming of the system, luck and hard work is either divine or a product of "dog eat dog" evolution-style aka "hussle". I've got shocking stories of outrageous actions, but the long term economic trends/facts are sobering.
- crusso 14y ago
  I love how people try to blame Capitalism for the problems caused by Statism and Cronyism.
  - king_jester 14y ago
    OK, I'll bite. How exactly is the state in fault here? Private businesses and farms in the agriculture and livestock industry cheap out on labor and labor practices on purposes to make extra profit. I am aware of federal and state subsidies for such businesses, but even without such subsidies you will see this kind of skimping on labor costs and facilities that encourage this kind of cruelty.
ianstallings 14y ago
Somewhere long ago before my time society "decided" that the merchant class was above all others. And we have suffered ever since.
mercurial 14y ago
> What kind of immoral, capitalistic people are in charge in the US. People who know where the funding for the next electoral campaign vote comes from. It's a free market: as a voter, you're the product, the corporations are the customers.
- locopati 14y ago
  You say this as if treating elections and voting as a market should be acceptable.
  - mercurial 14y ago
    I don't. I'm just calling a spade a spade. Not to say this is the case with all lawmakers, but corporations have much more influence over politics than they ought to, especially in the US (or so it seems as a European)
InclinedPlane 14y ago
Newsflash: it's extraordinarily unlikely that you live in a country with stronger protection of freedom of speech than the US. In fact, if you live in Europe you almost certainly don't.
- hmottestad 14y ago
  Any references?
  - dagw 14y ago
    References to what? The fact that Europe has lots of laws restricting free speech?
    - hmottestad 14y ago
      Europe has almost no laws. We are not like the US. The EU does enforce a bunch of laws. So does the EEA. So I would like a good example of a law from a european country that is not the UK or eastern europe.
      - ubernostrum 14y ago
        Try publishing information about a criminal trial, or about an auction of WWII memorabilia, in "almost no laws" places like France or Germany, and let me know how it goes.
        sergiosgc 14y ago
        Criminal trials, in much of Europe, are protected by privacy of justice laws, until the proceedings are complete. Then, the information is free. I view that as a good thing, as it prevents mob justice on the media. Let the courts decide, on their own timing, we can analyse the result later; instead of condemning someone in the public view, only to find out later she is an innocent with a forever tarnished reputation.
locusm 14y ago
"What kind of immoral, capitalistic people are in charge in the US?" The Lesters of course. http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_t...
- hmottestad 14y ago
  Yes. I saw that one just yesterday :D He makes great points, but his presentation makes me feel like I've walked into an appliance store and the salesman is trying to convince me to buy the most expensive fridge in the shop.
- unclebucknasty 14y ago
  Funny. That TED Talk is sponsored by Goldman Sachs.
jasonlotito 14y ago
> Who in their right mind would even propose such legislation. The Swiss. They lost.
sultezdukes 14y ago
Who's this - the ghost of Hugo Chavez gracing us with his presence? What kind of immoral, capitalistic people are in charge in the US The kind of people that don't throw you in jail if you just deny something in public, like in Germany, France, Canada.
- nullymcnull 14y ago
  Canada jailing people for 'just denying something'? Do tell.
  - gyardley 14y ago
    He's probably referring to the Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel. If I recall he spent quite a bit of time in jail in Canada for publishing his stuff, although I'm not sure his convictions stuck on appeal. After Zundel was finally deported to Germany (he was never a Canadian citizen), the Germans locked him up pretty promptly.
rayiner 14y ago
There are 300m people in the US and any one of them can propose a law.
- hmottestad 14y ago
  In this case: "But a dozen or so state legislatures have had a different reaction: They proposed or enacted bills that would make it illegal to covertly videotape livestock farms..."
- sophistroll 14y ago
  Ridiculous. Are you implying I have the same legislative power as the agriculture lobbies?
  - rayiner 14y ago
    I'm saying you don't need a lobby when you have millions of farmers who identify politically and culturally with big agriculture and part time state legislators who are often farmers themselves. My wife grew up in Iowa farm country. You don't need a lobby to convince these people that animal rights activists are terrorists.
    - wnight 14y ago
      Oh I see. When someone threatens your wallet it's now socially acceptable to cry "terrorist". You're a perfect example of what the OP was talking about. Justifying every abomination.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        I'm not justifying anything. I'm explaining. People in farm country: 1) constantly feel threatened due to the fickle nature of farming and thus are culturally very tight (even to the point of embracing agribusiness as "one of them"; 2) are insular and fairly culturally homogenous (my wife went to a high school with a graduating class of 60 people); 3) have a very different relationship with animals than people on the coasts. Animal rights activism is so outside the mainstream of their experience, that it doesn't take a huge lobby to convince them that these video tapers are one step away from blowing up farms. More broadly, they perceive the movement, like movements to control farm pollution, in terms of their own experience. Not as a cool cost-benefit calculation, but an existential threat to their way of life. That is not to say that they support animal cruelty per se. They react badly to what they perceive to be external threats. They rally around their own. They are really no different than any other group of people in this regard (see, e.g., how Hacker Newsers rally around their own any time people propose regulating tech companies; note the complete lack of moral outrage at Intel, AMD, Hewlett-Packard, etc, in the recent article about how these companies poisoned Palo Alto).

johndavidback 14y ago

As a US citizen, this scares the crap out of me. If the government is actively and publicly preventing people from exposing rampant crime, it speaks volumes. At least if they were trying to be covert or slick about it, it implies they know what they are doing is wrong.

ianstallings 14y ago
They just rammed a bill through congress to make Monsato above the law. They have drones scouring the globe for vans filled with people they can drop bombs on if they think they may associate with "bad" people. If you talk about it you're a conspiracy theorist. Which means you go onto a list. Gotta watch what you're doing now. They try to disarm the public in the name of safety while arming themselves to the teeth and solving every problem they have with the threat of violence. Think this is crazy talk? Well that's my point. It's become crazy to even mention some things. Frankly, the stuff is getting outright creepy and they better be careful because they are playing with fire.
- thisone 14y ago
  I find this bit to be on the 'oh-please' side of crazy: >They try to disarm the public in the name of safety while arming themselves to the teeth and solving every problem they have with the threat of violence. because I have a friend who used this basic argument to say gun control increases the likelihood of a nuclear strike on DC by North Korea.
  - hmottestad 14y ago
    People with big guns always say they are trying to make peace. Doesn't mean that trying to make peace is a bad thing. And by "disarm" I presume in the terms of rights/finances/influence....rather than literally in terms of guns.
  - ianstallings 14y ago
    Well is it not the truth? The US has the world's most heavily armed police forces. Their military makes others look quaint. They have military actions going on today right now all over the world. They always need more $ to continue the violence. Yet they claim that violence is wrong. It's really no wonder we're like a bunch of crazy people. The simple fact is uncle sam solves every problem with violence so I'm not surprised when it's citizens act the same way.

TomGullen 14y ago

"One of the group’s model bills, “The Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act,” prohibits filming or taking pictures on livestock farms to “defame the facility or its owner.” Violators would be placed on a “terrorist registry.”" This sounds like a line out of some futuristic dystopian film

egeozcan 14y ago
To me, it sounds as if it's taken from George Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four."
- mhaymo 14y ago
  Animal Farm also comes to mind, but that's awfully literal.
hmottestad 14y ago
Terrorist?? Sounds like fun. "Sorry mum. I can't come home for thanks giving cause I filmed a guy burn pigs alive and now I'm on the no fly list"
goatforce5 14y ago
"What are you in for?" "Terrorism" "How many people did you kill?" "I filmed some chickens."
IheartApplesDix 14y ago
Not sure what this is showing up on HN now. The law has been on the books since 2011. We should be more interested in the new law That just granted legal immunity to Monsanto.
- ryankshaw 14y ago
  what law are you talking about? I'd be intrested to learn more. can you provide a source / links?
  - 14y ago

TomGullen 14y ago

Can't the people filming the cruelty just re-brand themselves as undercover journalists and get all the protection journalists receive?

gambiting 14y ago
You can't just "brand" yourself a journalist. You need a licence and accreditation.
- TomGullen 14y ago
  I wasn't aware that was the case, can't anyone be a self proclaimed investigative journalist?
  - gambiting 14y ago
    You can write articles, but you don't get all the laws protecting journalists without getting a licence first. And even then, you usually need to be working for a press agency to get all privileges, you don't get all of them by being a freelancer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_pass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_pass
    - mnutt 14y ago
      The top-level comment is proposing using journalism as a defense against prosecution, not trying to secure press passes to go into the farms and film. A press pass is not a license. Of the court cases I remember, most used a number of factors to determine whether or not the defendant qualified as a journalist.
      - gambiting 14y ago
        It's more a question of whatever journalist-protecting laws should apply to you in a certain situation, not whatever you are a journalist or not. Conducting successful surgery does not make you a doctor, a proper licence does.

yuvadam 14y ago

This is nothing but plutocracy fighting its final battle. No one is actually suggesting that animal cruelty is OK. But when documenting such (immoral, mind you) acts raises awareness that eventually harms business, in the meat and dairy industry in this case, then big money raises its head in the form of legislation that favors the $$$. We see the same pattern when hackers are cast as the new terrorists.

pm24601 14y ago
"final battle" ? Not hardly. This continues to be a successful tactic of suppression
randomdata 14y ago
I wonder how the tech community would respond if undercover reporters were breaking into offices and documenting the "incomprehensible" C that managers are forcing down on employees when they could be purportedly writing software in English, and people stopped using software to help free the abused employees who are stuffed in a small cubicle to write nonsensical gibberish day-in, day-out? That is what this situation seems like. Animal cruelty is definitely not okay, but I have noticed a growing trend of reporting best practices, that attempt to minimize animal suffering as much as possible, as animal cruelty. And the solutions people are coming up with to improve on those best practices are as non-sensical as a non-industry expert suggesting that we write software in English. In a perfect world, sure, but the real world has real constraints. I would like to see real awareness, not people who feel they are experts on all rural affair matters after watching a two hour documentary and a YouTube clip or two. A video ban is definitely not the way to do that, but I can see the other side. Google isn't going to be too happy if you go around filming their datacenter, lamenting that you could do the same with a server in your closet at home, either.
- carbocation 14y ago
  Not that this is really relevant to the topic at hand, but are you actually drawing an equivalency between people who get paid to write code for a living and an animal being slaughtered? I don't think the analogy works at all.

ianstallings 14y ago

There's a creepy trend going on in the world and it's always been around, but it's gaining steam - the restriction of information. Make it illegal to talk about or simply ignore it becomes the standard. "These aren't the droids you're looking for" as they speak to the world.

coldpie 14y ago
I disagree. I think we are trending in the opposite direction, and these kinds of bills are the "bad guys" fighting back against that progress. The Internet and computing generally have really opened the flood gates on freedom of information. We have to fight to keep making progress, but I honestly believe we're trending forward on this. It's easy to draw an analogy to another fight dear to me, gay rights in the United States. 40 years ago, there were no anti-gay constitutional amendments. Today we're seeing many states pass anti-gay constitutional amendments. Is that because we're going backwards on gay rights, or because the "bad guys" are fighting progress? I think it's clearly the latter. Don't get discouraged by losing a battle when you're winning the war :) Keep up the fight.

gerhardi 14y ago

Why did the original posting get deleted? On to the topic, this is just ridiculous, how can anyone vote for such a law?

kristofferR 14y ago
Yeah, I found the deletion really weird too! Good that it's back though.
aspensmonster 14y ago
You mean this one? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5510201 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5510201 Because mods = gods I suppose.

edw519 14y ago

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

bjustin 14y ago
Many states do not allow ordinary citizens to record a phone call without the consent of both parties. This seems like it would have the same kind of justification.
carbocation 14y ago
To crystallize the point: how is this not, on its face, textbook First Amendment material?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- jrockway 14y ago
  It's First Amendment material, and I doubt the Supreme Court will uphold any of these laws. The problem is that there will be problems for people in the years between when the laws are passed and when a good case finally makes it to the Supreme Court. (The bit about making violating your employment contract a criminal act sounds exactly like the law that makes you a criminal for violating a website's ToS. Which has pretty much been struck down. But hey, there's no penalty for passing bad laws, so why not try? It makes your handlers happy!)
  - Justsignedup 14y ago
    ...And of course if the supreme court refuses the case...
  - mtgx 14y ago
    This is what I like about other countries which have Constitutional Courts that check for the a bill's constitutionality before it's passed into law. How many years does it have to pass in US before the Patriot Act, NSL's and FISA are verified by the Supreme Court? We're already into the second decade of their existence now.

mdkess 14y ago

Why not require video cameras be installed in factory farms, and have footage independently reviewed? I feel like a lot of this abuse is due to poorly educated workers in a stressful environment and no observation.

aegiso 14y ago
For the same reason this law exists. Profits. Everything else be damned.
spacemanaki 14y ago
I just pasted this quote elsewhere in this thread but I'm going to paste it here again because it's so bold-faced. The videos may seem troubling to someone unfamiliar with farming, said Kelli Ludlum, the group’s director of Congressional relations, but they can be like seeing open-heart surgery for the first time. “They could be performing a perfect procedure, but you would consider it abhorrent that they were cutting a person open,” she said. Some of the behavior filmed is standard operating procedures, and they don't want that viewed by the otherwise ignorant public.
- carbocation 14y ago
  And yet, in contrast, we have surgeons posting their videos for all to see on YouTube because they are proud of the work that they do and they want people to see what goes on in the OR.
  - mseebach 14y ago
    It helps that "victims" of successful surgeries end up playing catch with their kids, and not in a clearance bin in a supermarket.
- mdkess 14y ago
  That's why I think independent reviews are better than public shaming. The untrained eye might not notice a surgeon improperly clean an instrument before surgery, but that may be the most dangerous mistake that they make - one which the trained eye would catch but the untrained would not. I do, however, think that there is real animal cruelty that is going on. How big a problem it is I don't know, but we are civilized enough that we as a society should be taking steps toward stopping it.

patrickk 14y ago

I wonder what would have happened if this kind of legislation was in place for the guy who filmed the Mitt Romney "47%" video.

Anechoic 14y ago
That recording was illegal: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/florida-recording-law http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/florida-recording-law

pm90 14y ago

Putting the issue of legality of such legislation aside, it kinda surprised me that the farm-owners/workers were not more concerned about the kind of cruelty going on in their property. Do these people not find the videos incredibly unsettling? How can they allow these things under their watch?

mortov 14y ago
I don't think you understand. Before the filming, the cruelty happened and profits were just fine. After the filming was shown, profits went down/business was lost. Clearly the problem they need to fix is to stop filming to help keep profits up and avoid losing business. Clearer now ?
gambiting 14y ago
I have a relative who runs a big company selling meat. He only goes to his office once per week, no need to be there any more often. Almost everything that happens in the company is dealt with by his managers, so only super-critical stuff gets through to him. I can see how a person like that can be unaware that workers in one of his slaughterhouses kick pigs in the face, he's got better things to do than look through security footage all day. And when these things happen they are dealt with by local managers there,not by him personally. Like there was a case few months back, when one of his drivers was in an accident and killed a few people, and he - as a company owner - wouldn't even know about it if the insurance company hadn't called him directly telling him that they will be paying few million out of his policy, which made him look into it. If that didn't happen, he would not even be aware of that situation.
spacemanaki 14y ago
At least one of the practices mentioned, de-beaking [0], is nowhere near out of the ordinary at factory hatcheries. One of the quoted lobbyists even makes the point that some of the behavior recorded is the norm, not the exception: The videos may seem troubling to someone unfamiliar with farming, said Kelli Ludlum, the group’s director of Congressional relations, but they can be like seeing open-heart surgery for the first time. “They could be performing a perfect procedure, but you would consider it abhorrent that they were cutting a person open,” she said. While some of the abuses may be unusual, I suspect the truth is that they would prefer no one tape the regular day-to-day goings on at factory farms either. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debeaking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debeaking

S4M 14y ago

Can we, as a hacker community, do something about this kind of abuse - irregardless whether taping animal cruelty becomes illegal or not? My idea would be to set up some kind of wiki leaks for those videos, where animal rights militants would be able to anonymously post their videos.

Egregore 14y ago

From original article: but they can be like seeing open-heart surgery for the first time. “They could be performing a perfect procedure, but you would consider it abhorrent that they were cutting a person open,” she said. So should we now ban the taping of heart surgery?

snarfy 14y ago

I doubt all the people signing on to this even know it's happening. American Legislative Exchange Council: http://www.alec.org/about-alec/ http://www.alec.org/about-alec/ It might help to contact your representative and let them know about this article and that you associate them to it, and to protecting animal cruelty.

gyardley 14y ago

Sure, it's a silly law, sure, it probably won't survive constitutional review, and most definitely, true cruelty to animals is a crime. But this is also a rather predictable backlash against groups who aren't looking to correct occasional violations of regulations in the meatpacking industry, but shut down the industry as a whole - devastating local communities by getting rid of a ton of low-skilled jobs. Since we're not exactly making more low-skilled jobs these days, many of the people affected will be impoverished for life, taking their towns with them. Given that, it's not at all surprising that employees, employers, and local politicians are responding very aggressively. Any industry under the same threat would respond the same way.

hni 14y ago
> devastating local communities by getting rid of a ton of low-skilled jobs Why would those communities be devastated? People still have to eat, hence low-skilled jobs would still be required to produce other kinds of food in the same local communities.
- gyardley 14y ago
  Meatpacking remains labor intensive in a way that other forms of large-scale farming are not. Even if there was labor parity, they're not usually done in the same places. Meatpacking is usually done near transportation hubs, and ranching is usually on land that's not suitable for agricultural purposes.
mistercow 14y ago
>but shut down the industry as a whole - devastating local communities by getting rid of a ton of low-skilled jobs. The same arguments were thrown around when we were talking about abolishing slavery. The economy will adapt.
- gyardley 14y ago
  Oh, perhaps it will. But I'm not arguing about the ability of the economy as a whole to adapt. I'm arguing that the extreme-sounding response of the meatpacking industry, which everyone in the thread is flipping out about, should be completely expected given the motives of those doing the filming, and their attitudes towards the meatpacking industry - they don't want to reform it, they want to shut it down. While economies can adapt, people and industries get left behind. Whatever you feel about meat, this is just a simple attempt on the part of an industry and its participants to defend their livelihoods, and should be understood accordingly - it's a perfectly rational act. This is so gobsmacking obvious I'm amused by the downvotes. Half the country fought a civil war in defense of slavery. Are people seriously surprised meatpackers want to criminalize a little filming in defense of their own industry?

CurtMonash 14y ago

At this point in the US, censorship laws like this usually get defeated. Fourth Amendment/privacy/etc. are the areas where I'm more worried about civil liberties. That said, the reason they get defeated is, in large part, because of the outcry when they're attempted. I don't want to minimize the need to keep fighting for freedom.

btipling 14y ago

Here's a crazy idea, stop eating meat. It's energy inefficient and cruel.

Ygg2 14y ago
Here's a better idea. Engineer meat from animal stem cells. More energy efficient and less cruel (although maybe less tasty). Plants take less energy but provide less energy to humans (meat is more power efficient). Think of plant and animal like 1.5V batteries vs. 3V batteries.
- netrus 14y ago
  Well, all the power stored in your beef-battery was charged with plants ... There is some upper limit for the energy efficiency of meat, and it is below that of vegetables.
  - Ygg2 14y ago
    I think most meat has more calorie per kilogram than plants. If you could grow it without having to feed the plants to the animal it's a win-win, no?
- btipling 14y ago
  Nope. It would require less farming to feed people than to feed animals and people to eat those animals. Energy loss is an order of magnitude. If you ate the plants instead of eating the animals eating the plants it would be more energy efficient.
  - Ygg2 14y ago
    Would it take less energy to grow meat (in lab) or grow plant?
    - btipling 14y ago
      I don't know anything about growing meat in the lab, but it doesn't sound very appealing and I've lost any desire to eat meat long ago so I don't really care either way. The theoretical potential to grow meat isn't in any way a convincing argument to make eating meat right this minute either non-cruel or energy efficient however.

lprubin 14y ago

If you eat factory farmed meat, eggs, or dairy, you are almost guaranteed to be supporting animal cruelty. There are many fantastic books and documentaries detailing the horrors and dangers of factory farming and I've linked to a few below. This is an open secret. I would be willing to bet that almost anybody here, once they've looked deeply into factory farming, would come out the other side and look at factory farmed animal products in a completely new light. Do you truly want to stop farm animal cruelty? Investigate this industry and consider no longer buying factory farmed animal products. http://www.amazon.com/Food-Inc-Participant-Industrial-Poorer-/dp/1586486942/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365429391&sr=1-1&keywords=food+inc http://www.amazon.com/Food-Inc-Participant-Industrial-Poorer... http://www.amazon.com/Eating-Animals-Jonathan-Safran-Foer/dp/0316069884 http://www.amazon.com/Eating-Animals-Jonathan-Safran-Foer/dp...

sophistroll 14y ago
For many, the concept "boycott meat" is even more ridiculous than the concept "animal rights". We have a very long way to go.
- lprubin 14y ago
  Certainly, but I said nothing about boycotting meat. I said boycott factory farmed meat. Meat can be done "humanely." Seek it out and support it if you wish but it is not to be found in factory farms. Vote with your wallet.
  - sophistroll 14y ago
    I am doing this. It is difficult. And it makes restaurants suck. And let's be real, SF, Portland, etc might one day reach 50% humane meat... maybe. What's the plan for telling the "average" American that a dozen eggs cost $12? And some of them are weird colors?
    - ndespres 14y ago
      My farm-fresh dozens cost $6 in the greater NYC area. I'm only in my first year of farming as a startup but I'm finding that it is profitable and enjoyable to serve fresh, local food to people without gouging them for it.

kyrra 14y ago

This is not meant to defend cruel people, I just want to raise a few points about farms. While I have only been to small farms, I have definitely seen what some people would consider animal cruelty. But I think it's important to understand the mentality of people that work with these animals. Animals on farms are seen as property, not a pet in any way. Most owners and workers of animals distance themselves from the animals to keep themselves mentally healthy as they will be putting these animals to slaughter to sell or eat. When distance yourself from an animal, you won't be treating it as nicely as you would your family dog. When talking about farm help, they may hold a grudge against the animals they are working with. A friend would work his uncle's farm every saturday to help clean up after the pigs. His job was basically shoveling pig poop for 8 hours (or other equally not-fun jobs). It would take a day before he smelled normal again. Doing this kind of work can make some people resentful of the animals they work with. Farmers and farm help see animals as money, so they won't do anything that could jeopardize being paid (won't damage the product). When people are disconnected with the animals they are working with, it is easier for some people not to be so nice to those animals. This isn't to say that all people working with animals will be abusive towards them, but it creates an opening for those people that aren't as nice to take their anger out on the animals.

sophistroll 14y ago
Sounds more like you are defending hypocrites/unprincipled people. By your argument, it's more ok for me to hurt you (from whom I am distanced by the fact that we have never met) than my girlfriend. It's a question of rights, not convenience or qualifications.
lprubin 14y ago
As of a couple of years ago, the average job tenure of an employee working in a slaughterhouse was 6 months. Many people lasted half a day to three days. The emotional stress and trauma of witnessing living animals being put through the kind of things factory farming does to them is emotionally overwhelming to even the most hardened people. The people who have to witness that day in and day out frequently end up with extreme emotional turmoil/psychological trauma similar to PTSD and it is these traumatized employees who end enacting much of the crueler practices talked about in these videos. It's very challenging for a person to witness what goes on in a slaughterhouse and to maintain their sanity. Trying to keep the idea that these are living creatures with rights but also that it is perfectly fine for them to suffer the horrible treatment they are subjected to requires a tenuous mental gymnastics that apparently seems to break down after only a couple of months of exposure.

gizmo686 14y ago

For anyone fammilar with the US legal system, would you need to be tried for breaking this law before you can challenge it in court (where you would be on the hook for criminal penalties), or can you proactivly challenge such laws without breaking them?

jellicle 14y ago
Depends! In some cases, you can make the claim that a certain law is so broad and clearly unconstitutional that it affects everyone and should be struck down. The courts may accept such a case or they may say, "no, doesn't look like that to us, wait until you have someone prosecuted under this law and then come back and argue about the specific case". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_challenge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_challenge

pyre 14y ago

Even in the most extreme of cases, I don't see how claiming that A.L.F. even is a 'terrorist' organisation. Sure they 'liberate' the animals from their owners, but you don't call a burglar a terrorist. Seems these days like "breaking the law in the furtherance of a political cause" is the new definition of terrorism (rather than using violence to sow the seeds to terror), and we're creating more laws to make more terrorists. Gotta fuel the War on Terror somehow I guess...

polymatter 14y ago
Its worse because it trivialises actual terrorists and the people that gave their lives to protect us from them.
DanBC 14y ago
ALF is an umbrella term. There was an ALF press office, which would release information and propaganda. But anyone was free to perform an action and claim it for the ALF. Calling an organisation like that terrorist is problematic. But, still ... There was a campaign against department stores selling fur in the 80s / 90s. The claimed intent was to cause massive water damage from sprinkler systems. People would place incendiary devices into the pockets of clothes (one reason pockets are now stitched closed) and these devices would go off at night. Unfortunately sprinkler systems didn't go off, and stores burnt down. 'Out of hours' does not mean 'empty'; the lives of cleaners, for example, were risked by this campaign. There have been other arson campaigns against abattoirs, meat packing / distribution plants, dairies, etc. Animal rights activists have dug up corpses. There has been an extensive campaign of harassment against anyone linked to Huntingdon Life Sciences; this includes anyone providing any form of service to HLS. People think in terms of 'legitimate targets'. A company is a legitimate target. Anyone working for that company is a legitimate target. The children of, for example, a secretary working for that company are not legitimate targets. Early members of ALF got advice from IRA. Breaking the law to further a political cause is, perhaps, fine. But some of the extremes done in the name of animal rights are clearly terrorist offences.
- pyre 14y ago
  Maybe so, but the government likes to label all animal rights activists as terrorists. Even groups like ADL whose expressed mandate is to promote animal rights via legal means. My point wasn't that all animal rights activists are angels, but moreso that there is a bias against them from government/law enforcement. Some anti-abortion activists have bombed abortion clinics, but you don't see the anti-abortion movement labelled as a bunch of terrorists.

DanielBMarkham 14y ago

I am totally for people being able to expose farm cruelty if the goal is an open debate to enact political change. I wonder, however, if sometimes people use their free speech rights to terrorize potential supporters and advocates, folks who are unfamiliar with reality and context, in order to raise money through FUD. That doesn't mean I don't support their right to free speech. Just means that the speaking part and the recording part need to be considered separately. I added that caveat because what we're going to see is all sorts of people with all kinds of interests taping things, especially with drone technology and ubiquitous surveillance. This isn't somebody writing a play, novel, or an editorial. It's somebody taking something that you thought was private and displaying it for the world to see, inside their own editorial frame. It's something we should think about carefully. While I am completely in support of MLK's right to make the speech "I have a dream", I'm not so sure I'd be in favor of somebody secretly taping him with a drone while he was creating it. And then creating their own political content around that tape. Case in point: here's an article I was going to research and rewrite last week but didn't have time. In Australia, animal activists are planning on using drones to tape farmers looking for cruelty. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/02/animal_liberation_australia_drones/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/02/animal_liberation_au... Would you want anybody with a political cause access to your property whenever they wanted to make recordings to support their political point?

lectrick 14y ago

Burying your head in the sand was always an excellent survival strategy.

joering2 14y ago

"But a dozen or so state legislatures have had a different reaction" May we know them by names? "state legislatures" is a body, not a actual person. I want to know the names so next time they knock at my door asking for a vote, I know what to say.

simonster 14y ago

As an animal researcher, I'm of two minds on this. Obviously, it's better if animal cruelty is exposed. The practices mentioned in the introduction definitely constitute cruelty. They should not be allowed to happen, and whistleblowers should be permitted to record them so that evidence may be presented in court. On the other hand, people with ties to animal rights organizations have a habit of finding animal cruelty where there is none. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Spring_monkeys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Spring_monkeys for a classic example. The pictures produced by PETA portrayed a researcher's work as an open-and-shut case of animal cruelty when, in fact, the research was scientifically justified and it was ambiguous whether there was any negligence in the way the animals were cared for.

eltondegeneres 14y ago
There was no doubt whether the animals subjected to unreasonable suffering. As for the question of scientific justification, there were non-animal models for neuroplasticity research available at the time. The widespread use of monkeys in neuroscience is more of a matter of convenience and entrenched interests. Just because a study produces scientific results does not mean that it is ethically valid, take the Tuskegee syphilis experiments or San Antonio Contraceptive Study for example.
- simonster 14y ago
  This debate has been covered to death in other sources. The majority of scientists disagree with you. It might be because there is a vast conspiracy; it might because most peoples' values differ from yours; or it might be because we know neuroscience better than you do EDIT: Just to make clear, I don't want this to be taken as a wholehearted endorsement of the treatment of the animals in the Silver Springs case. There were some questionable practices. However, I feel that there was a scientific reason to be performing the general class of experiments.
  - jkn 14y ago
    Scientists who don't feel strongly about animal rights defend the position that is most convenient and efficient for them. If using a monkey instead of spending months cultivating petri dishes is easier (e.g. more deterministically successful for publication) then of course they will advocate for using the monkey. This argument leaves the animal rights activist unimpressed. In the end most animal experiments are certainly useful but few are strictly necessary. Researchers complain about all the paperwork required but I wish it was 100 times more difficult to get these experiments approved. Then people would really make sure the experiment is well thought-out and important. And I would happily delay some scientific discoveries by 50 years if that can spare a few million animals (thanks to better computer models or new noninvasive techniques)

pvaldes 14y ago

and now, for something different With the avian flu problem rising again, Maybe to keep these young activists out of the farms and safe of touching avian decays is not as bad idea as it could seem There are some risks associated to each working place, and is not very sage that any not autorized people can mess with the human food chain

Ras_ 14y ago

Unwittingly in this attempt to legislate, they might have found the best way possible to raise moral justification to do farm tapes in the first place.

marze 14y ago

They should pass a law requiring 24 hr cameras in all animal facilities broadcasting to the web. People who care could monitor the feeds. If no cruelty takes place and those who care about animals not being mistreated cover the costs, it is win win.

cpursley 14y ago

Is there a farm cruelty map? One where locations can be tagged with media, info about the farm and the farm product buyers? There should be...

MindBoozer 14y ago

I don't think anyone here has been to a farm.

TallGuyShort 14y ago
Wrong

will_brown 14y ago

These companies can already include non-disclosure, non-disparagement and non-circumvention provisions in their employment agreements. If an employee/undercover investigator violates those contractual terms not only could they be individually liable for damages but the organizations (news or animal rights organizations) sponsoring the undercover investigation could also be liable. Further, they can contractually prohibit employees from video recording at their place of employment - there is no need for these companies to be lobbying for criminal sanctions for this behavior.

Zimahl 14y ago

Isn't this in direct conflict with whistleblower laws? I mean, it should never be illegal to report on illegal activity. However, if PETA feels that a perfectly legal and well-maintained slaughterhouse should be taped and the 'horrors' shown, that's a different story. Just because they feel 'meat is murder' doesn't mean that it is.

lessnonymous 14y ago
I think that's probably at least the intention of the legislation. When PETA films some normal farm procedure, they'll add ominous music, show only the most horrid parts of whatever is happening, desaturate the pictures and tar the entire industry with being gruesome. Under 1st Amendment rights, they're allowed to do this. They're not showing anything that didn't happen so it isn't libelous. Personally I think the first amendment is out of date. The appeal to it's authority is a prime example of the Historians Fallacy[1]. In many other countries there are restrictions on speech -- and that is seen as a generally good thing. Eg. hate speech, and holocaust denial. Defamation cases are also able to hide behind the first amendment in the USA, where they cannot elsewhere. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian%27s_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian%27s_fallacy

hispanic 14y ago

If you'd like to take action against Ag-Gag, I suggest signing the petition at http://www.ag-gag.org/ http://www.ag-gag.org/. You might also want to consider subscribing to the FarmForward mailing list and/or making a donation - http://www.farmforward.com http://www.farmforward.com

aaronbrethorst 14y ago

Ah, ALEC is behind it. Color me not shocked. Here's some background: * http://swampland.time.com/2012/04/09/alec-what-it-does-and-why-three-major-corporations-cut-ties/ http://swampland.time.com/2012/04/09/alec-what-it-does-and-w... * http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-13/why-are-mcdonalds-coca-cola-and-intuit-fleeing-alec http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-13/why-are-mcdo...

michaelochurch 14y ago

This is disgusting. Apparently taping animal cruelty in order to influence economic behavior is now terrorism. This reminds me of how much of the press sat on the wiretapping scandals of 2004 because "it might be political" (meaning it might affect the election, since Bush was directly responsible). As long as the information is truthful, that's the press's fucking job! Ignorance is Strength, Freedom is Slavery, and Truth is Terrorism.