15 ms·

"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 pre

by 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.
    - RyanMcGreal 14y ago
      Americans have this persistent idea that their Constitution is somehow superior to the constitutions of other industrialized liberal democracies, when the reality is that the American system, notwithstanding amendments to fix certain practical failures, remains essentially stuck in 18th century ideas about liberty and governance.
      - philwelch 14y ago
        Yes, it's a pity we never did things like make "hate speech" exceptions to freedom of speech, ban firearms, abolish double jeopardy, or revoke this silly notion that you're not required to talk to the police. The only problem with the American constitution is that the federal government isn't very good at following it. Other than that, it's far more liberal than most liberal democracies even try to get away with.
        RyanMcGreal 14y ago
        This is exactly what I'm talking about. The US has no monopoly on the right to free expression, silence when talking to the police, protection against double jeopardy and so on. It is a peculiar kind of American exceptionalism that imagines other liberal democracies suffer under quasi-tyrannical legal systems by comparison. The US Constitution's protection of the right to firearms, which actually is an outlier among liberal democracies, is also a case in point of its essentially 18th century conception of rights and governance. The Second Amendment is based on the quaint idea that individual liberties can only be secured through the constant threat of civilian rebellion and violence against the government. Nearly every other liberal democracy regulates and restricts ownership and use of firearms far more than the US does, and those countries have no more fallen into tyranny than the US has - in fact, those countries tend to have governments that are more responsive and accountable to their citizens than the US, in addition to having rates of gun violence that are orders of magnitude lower. I would respectfully submit that the common American assumption that the government cannot be trusted to do anything right is self-fulfilling.
  - jrwoodruff 14y ago
    Back in my journalism school days, ABC v. Food Lion was referenced as the precedent for undercover reporting. In this case, Two ABC reporters got jobs working at a Food Lion in North Carolina and taped footage of the store selling spoiled meat. Food Lion sued for unfair trade practices, fraud, breach of contract, etc. ABC was fined $5.5 million, but that was later reduced to about $300,000, according to a quick Google search. This was used to illustrate why journalists must disclose that they are journalists and should avoid undercover methods, as written in the journalism code of ethics. Sources: http://lawclassolemiss.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/food-lion-inc-v-capital-citiesabc-inc/ http://lawclassolemiss.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/food-lion-in... http://www.poynter.org/uncategorized/2125/abc-and-food-lion-the-ethics-questions/ http://www.poynter.org/uncategorized/2125/abc-and-food-lion-... http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/09/arts/beyond-abc-v-food-lion.html http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/09/arts/beyond-abc-v-food-lio... http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp Edit: Also interesting, but not quite as relevant, is the Chiquita/Cincinnati Enquirer scandal that happened around the same time. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/07/chiquita-phone-hacking-scandal.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/07/chiqu...
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - jrockway 14y ago
      This is very interesting and I didn't know about it. Isn't $300,000 pocket change, though?
      - jrwoodruff 14y ago
        Oh definetly. In the Chiquita case, Gannett was willing to settle out of court for eight figures. IANAL, but my understanding is its more about the precedent set, as other similar cases will reference these judgements.
    - spizzo 14y ago
      I don't understand why this is bad, though. In that case food lion got publicly busted and undoubtedly had to tighten standards. What's the alternative in a system where you can't engage in undercover reporting? ABC: "Hey food lion. ABC here. Do you guys sell rotten meat?" Food Lion: "no. no we do not." ABC: "Mind if we check?" Food Lion: "Sure, just give me a minute to clean up some things so you're not seeing how we operate day-to-day. I'll schedule your visit." ABC: "Huh. Everything looks above board" Food Lion: "Yes, they do look that way today. On your visit. Don't come back without notice."
- ecaron 14y ago
  At risk of being down-voted out of existence, this isn't First Amendment material in the same way that defamation (e.g. slander, libel) isn't First Amendment material - or how breaking into a pharmaceutical and publishing their formulas aren't First Amendment material. Although Minnesota's version of the ag-gag bill was certainly too far reaching and rightfully shut down (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S1118.0.html&session=ls87 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S1118.0.html...), I'm behind the core concept that guerrilla-style undercover videos belongs on the farm as much as it does in our offices. The biggest danger is confusing the "taping" discussed in this article with actual journalism - and in-depth analysis of the legislation definitively shows that these ag companies will grudgingly allow legitimate reporting of their facilities, but have a right to persecute unethical practices. * Don't confuse the Humane Society of the United States with your local humane society. For example, their CEO is against the ownership of pets. More details are at http://www.humanewatch.org/ http://www.humanewatch.org/, but take that with the same scepticism you would any documentary or online video:-)
  - pyre 14y ago
    | breaking into a pharmaceutical and | publishing their formulas aren't First | Amendment material Are you really trying to claim that filming the way that animals are treated behind closed doors is a 'trade secret' in the same way that pharmaceutical formulas[1] are? [1] Not to mention that most of these are published in the form of patents anyways...
    - ecaron 14y ago
      You're right, my formula analogy was poor because of the reasons you mentioned. Breaking in and filming the testing facilities would have been more apt. Certainly those facilities need watch guard groups advocating for the protection of the tested, but pharmaceutical has proper channels for that oversight and we're denying ag that same benefit.
  - eltondegeneres 14y ago
    Just a heads up: Humane Watch is run by the Center for Consumer Freedom which is a lobbying group for the agriculture and tobacco industries. I'd be wary of anything i read of their websites.
- pyre 14y ago
  It's obvious. Animal rights activists are terrorists, and terrorists don't have rights because they are "attacking our way of life and they hate our freedom [to eat meat while ignoring how it gets to our tables]."
  - solistice 14y ago
    I'm a semanticist precisely for that reason. Due to ill definition of the term "terrorist", it went from "Violent supporter of an agenda that uses scare tactics to demoralize" to "People filming Animal Abuse" or other more benign individuals that do not deserve that description.
- brownbat 14y ago
  There is a paper that discusses this issue in more detail, "Principles for Resolving Conflicts Between Trade Secrets and the First Amendment" by P. Samuelson: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=925056 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=925056 Upholding contracts and preventing trespassing (or other "wrongful conduct") are usually fair game for restrictions on 1A. But "Trade secret law is grounded in unfair competition principles, ... [so] First Amendment defenses to trade secret claims are most likely to succeed as to those who did not participate in misappropriating the information, who acquired the information lawfully, and who seek to make public disclosures as to matters of public concern. In exceptional cases, preliminary injunctions may impinge on First Amendment rights even when defendants are in privity or have wrongfully acquired the information." This isn't just "what's your secret method for cheaply polishing ball bearings." It's clearly a "matter of public concern," and that does help enormously. But your first amendment claims would improve even more if the person distributing the information neither trespassed nor broke an employment contract. Also note that the California Supreme Court has made it a jurisdiction least likely to apply first amendment to trump trade secret law, thanks to DVD Copy Control v. Bunner. It would be advisable for any prospective documentarians to pass off any collected information to a local news station (rather than just youtube). Don't tell the network how you got it or develop any long term relationship with them. Make sure they have media liability insurance. Then maybe lay low while they fight the case, which they'll probably have to appeal all the way up. That'd set up the model case and the money to fund it. Even short of that, though, as a "matter of public concern," this may be one of those "exceptional cases" alluded to above. It'd be interesting to see it argued.
  - pyre 14y ago
    Why does the breaking of an employment contract need to turn into criminal charges, and get labelled as 'terrorism?'
    - brownbat 14y ago
      Note that it's labeled "terrorism" only in some interest group's "model bill." Random interest groups are allowed to call whatever they like "terrorism," and they're allowed to write poorly thought out bills. Also note that most of the bills are failing. Even Missouri, where the article says one passed, you're just required to notify law enforcement if you witness animal abuse, and offer them copies of your video: http://www.senate.mo.gov/12info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=92863 http://www.senate.mo.gov/12info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionTyp... It's a strange type of gag order that only compels speech. I mean, these are definitely still bills worth challenging, but the article seems to be embellishing a bit.
orbitur 14y ago
Isn't this a privacy issue? Going in to someone's private property and filming/recording them without their knowledge doesn't seem like it would have anything to do with the first amendment.
- carbocation 14y ago
  By that logic, don't we already have an enormous apparatus of laws that exist to protect the property owner? What would these bills add?
  - orbitur 14y ago
    I'm not advocating for new laws, but I do not believe this is a first amendment issue.
    - carbocation 14y ago
      Sure it is. The proposed text of the "Animal Ecological Terrorism Act" provides for criminal penalties including jail time for violators. Why should the First Amendment not protect me from the state in this context?
      - pc86 14y ago
        Because you broke other pre-existing laws (trespassing, possibly breaking & entering, other violations of private property)?
        carbocation 14y ago
        > By that logic, don't we already have an enormous apparatus of laws that exist to protect the property owner? What would these bills add?
        uptown 14y ago
        "And employees who do something beyond the scope of their jobs could be charged with criminal trespass." So say an employee that's not an animal rights activist sees something deplorable and records it as evidence. Only then are they considered to have trespassed - flying in the face of whistle-blower protections that have been in-place in countless other industries for decades. If what's happening is a crime - and I believe animal cruelty still qualifies (even if it occurs on a farm) - at what point does someone that chooses to look the other way become a co-conspirator?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 14y ago
That would be relevant if the state governments were banning display of these videos. But free speech rights have never encompassed regulation of what you can do on private property without the consent of the property owner. It's not any more unconstitutional (note, as usual, the disclaimer that just because its constitutional doesn't mean its a good idea) to make a law that bans video taping on private farms than it is to make a law that bans me video taping your wife in the shower in your house.
- trhtrsh 14y ago
  Why do you need a law to ban something that is already illegal, or something that is intentionally protected by law? Trespassing and violating private legal activity is already illegal, and whistleblowing on criminal activity is protected by current law.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    The point isn't that video tapers should be prosecuted as anything other than as trespassers. The point is that the constitutionality of the law derives from the same place. It is not an exercise of free speech to go onto private property to do pretty much anything.
    - mapster 14y ago
      then we can expect a cascade of similar legislation banning taping in non-profits (Acorn), pseudo-private areas, etc.?
      - cobrausn 14y ago
        Seems to me institutions like Acorn that accept the public as part of their operation can't really prosecute a whistleblower as a trespasser. I'm not sure what a pseudo-private area is. What raynier is saying (I think) is that if it is illegal to trespass, then it is illegal to trespass for purposes of whistleblowing because that is still trespassing - imagine if they had trespassed, filmed, and found nothing illegal. If one of the farm workers were to film the video, there would have been no trespassing - it would constitute whistleblowing.
SeanDav 14y ago
As an outsider, it appears to me that almost the entire US legal and political system is driven by, and for the benefit of, corporate and big business interests. The only other major factor at work seems to be fear - witness the ever increasing power of the TSA Probably appears worse than it is, but it does appear to be in a pretty sad state now. The Founding Fathers are probably turning in their graves.
- coldtea 14y ago
  >As an outsider, it appears to me that the almost the entire US legal and political system is driven by, and for the benefit of, corporate and big business interests. The only other major factor at work seems to be fear - witness the ever increasing power of the TSA Three factors driving law and politics in the US, IMNSHO: money: big business, work the system for profit fear: government works the system for more control selfism: citizens (neoliberals, Bible Belt, etc) working the system to ensure nothing will be done for the public good
- maratd 14y ago
  > As an outsider, it appears to me that the almost the entire US legal and political system is driven by, and for the benefit of, corporate and big business interests. This is the case in every country. Those at the top will take an inordinate amount of time to make rules that benefit themselves and their friends. The primary difference between the US and other countries is that the US constitution provides a means for the citizens to fight back against the most outrageous of offenses. Now, that doesn't mean it always works. In fact, it rarely does. But it does, in fact, work occasionally, which is better than nothing.
  - herval 14y ago
    > The primary difference between the US and other countries is that the US constitution provides a means for the citizens to fight back against the most outrageous of offenses. What way does the US constitution provide that other countries don't (besides the firearms shenanigans)?
    - 14y ago
lifeisstillgood 14y ago
What with Thatchers passing, a Home Secretary wanting to abolish our signing up to the european human rights act, I just love the sound of those words tonight. +1 to Madison and Jefferson
bane 14y ago
The way that it's determined if these laws are congruent with the U.S. Constitution is for the infringed groups to take the case before SCOTUS. It's just the sad way it is, the Legislature is under no particular obligation to determine the Constitutionality of the laws it passes. Sucks, but that's the way it is.

by edw519 14y ago

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.
  - RyanMcGreal 14y ago
    Americans have this persistent idea that their Constitution is somehow superior to the constitutions of other industrialized liberal democracies, when the reality is that the American system, notwithstanding amendments to fix certain practical failures, remains essentially stuck in 18th century ideas about liberty and governance.
    - philwelch 14y ago
      Yes, it's a pity we never did things like make "hate speech" exceptions to freedom of speech, ban firearms, abolish double jeopardy, or revoke this silly notion that you're not required to talk to the police. The only problem with the American constitution is that the federal government isn't very good at following it. Other than that, it's far more liberal than most liberal democracies even try to get away with.
      - RyanMcGreal 14y ago
        This is exactly what I'm talking about. The US has no monopoly on the right to free expression, silence when talking to the police, protection against double jeopardy and so on. It is a peculiar kind of American exceptionalism that imagines other liberal democracies suffer under quasi-tyrannical legal systems by comparison. The US Constitution's protection of the right to firearms, which actually is an outlier among liberal democracies, is also a case in point of its essentially 18th century conception of rights and governance. The Second Amendment is based on the quaint idea that individual liberties can only be secured through the constant threat of civilian rebellion and violence against the government. Nearly every other liberal democracy regulates and restricts ownership and use of firearms far more than the US does, and those countries have no more fallen into tyranny than the US has - in fact, those countries tend to have governments that are more responsive and accountable to their citizens than the US, in addition to having rates of gun violence that are orders of magnitude lower. I would respectfully submit that the common American assumption that the government cannot be trusted to do anything right is self-fulfilling.
- jrwoodruff 14y ago
  Back in my journalism school days, ABC v. Food Lion was referenced as the precedent for undercover reporting. In this case, Two ABC reporters got jobs working at a Food Lion in North Carolina and taped footage of the store selling spoiled meat. Food Lion sued for unfair trade practices, fraud, breach of contract, etc. ABC was fined $5.5 million, but that was later reduced to about $300,000, according to a quick Google search. This was used to illustrate why journalists must disclose that they are journalists and should avoid undercover methods, as written in the journalism code of ethics. Sources: http://lawclassolemiss.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/food-lion-inc-v-capital-citiesabc-inc/ http://lawclassolemiss.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/food-lion-in... http://www.poynter.org/uncategorized/2125/abc-and-food-lion-the-ethics-questions/ http://www.poynter.org/uncategorized/2125/abc-and-food-lion-... http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/09/arts/beyond-abc-v-food-lion.html http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/09/arts/beyond-abc-v-food-lio... http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp Edit: Also interesting, but not quite as relevant, is the Chiquita/Cincinnati Enquirer scandal that happened around the same time. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/07/chiquita-phone-hacking-scandal.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/07/chiqu...
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - jrockway 14y ago
    This is very interesting and I didn't know about it. Isn't $300,000 pocket change, though?
    - jrwoodruff 14y ago
      Oh definetly. In the Chiquita case, Gannett was willing to settle out of court for eight figures. IANAL, but my understanding is its more about the precedent set, as other similar cases will reference these judgements.
  - spizzo 14y ago
    I don't understand why this is bad, though. In that case food lion got publicly busted and undoubtedly had to tighten standards. What's the alternative in a system where you can't engage in undercover reporting? ABC: "Hey food lion. ABC here. Do you guys sell rotten meat?" Food Lion: "no. no we do not." ABC: "Mind if we check?" Food Lion: "Sure, just give me a minute to clean up some things so you're not seeing how we operate day-to-day. I'll schedule your visit." ABC: "Huh. Everything looks above board" Food Lion: "Yes, they do look that way today. On your visit. Don't come back without notice."
ecaron 14y ago
At risk of being down-voted out of existence, this isn't First Amendment material in the same way that defamation (e.g. slander, libel) isn't First Amendment material - or how breaking into a pharmaceutical and publishing their formulas aren't First Amendment material. Although Minnesota's version of the ag-gag bill was certainly too far reaching and rightfully shut down (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S1118.0.html&session=ls87 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S1118.0.html...), I'm behind the core concept that guerrilla-style undercover videos belongs on the farm as much as it does in our offices. The biggest danger is confusing the "taping" discussed in this article with actual journalism - and in-depth analysis of the legislation definitively shows that these ag companies will grudgingly allow legitimate reporting of their facilities, but have a right to persecute unethical practices. * Don't confuse the Humane Society of the United States with your local humane society. For example, their CEO is against the ownership of pets. More details are at http://www.humanewatch.org/ http://www.humanewatch.org/, but take that with the same scepticism you would any documentary or online video:-)
- pyre 14y ago
  | breaking into a pharmaceutical and | publishing their formulas aren't First | Amendment material Are you really trying to claim that filming the way that animals are treated behind closed doors is a 'trade secret' in the same way that pharmaceutical formulas[1] are? [1] Not to mention that most of these are published in the form of patents anyways...
  - ecaron 14y ago
    You're right, my formula analogy was poor because of the reasons you mentioned. Breaking in and filming the testing facilities would have been more apt. Certainly those facilities need watch guard groups advocating for the protection of the tested, but pharmaceutical has proper channels for that oversight and we're denying ag that same benefit.
- eltondegeneres 14y ago
  Just a heads up: Humane Watch is run by the Center for Consumer Freedom which is a lobbying group for the agriculture and tobacco industries. I'd be wary of anything i read of their websites.
pyre 14y ago
It's obvious. Animal rights activists are terrorists, and terrorists don't have rights because they are "attacking our way of life and they hate our freedom [to eat meat while ignoring how it gets to our tables]."
- solistice 14y ago
  I'm a semanticist precisely for that reason. Due to ill definition of the term "terrorist", it went from "Violent supporter of an agenda that uses scare tactics to demoralize" to "People filming Animal Abuse" or other more benign individuals that do not deserve that description.
brownbat 14y ago
There is a paper that discusses this issue in more detail, "Principles for Resolving Conflicts Between Trade Secrets and the First Amendment" by P. Samuelson: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=925056 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=925056 Upholding contracts and preventing trespassing (or other "wrongful conduct") are usually fair game for restrictions on 1A. But "Trade secret law is grounded in unfair competition principles, ... [so] First Amendment defenses to trade secret claims are most likely to succeed as to those who did not participate in misappropriating the information, who acquired the information lawfully, and who seek to make public disclosures as to matters of public concern. In exceptional cases, preliminary injunctions may impinge on First Amendment rights even when defendants are in privity or have wrongfully acquired the information." This isn't just "what's your secret method for cheaply polishing ball bearings." It's clearly a "matter of public concern," and that does help enormously. But your first amendment claims would improve even more if the person distributing the information neither trespassed nor broke an employment contract. Also note that the California Supreme Court has made it a jurisdiction least likely to apply first amendment to trump trade secret law, thanks to DVD Copy Control v. Bunner. It would be advisable for any prospective documentarians to pass off any collected information to a local news station (rather than just youtube). Don't tell the network how you got it or develop any long term relationship with them. Make sure they have media liability insurance. Then maybe lay low while they fight the case, which they'll probably have to appeal all the way up. That'd set up the model case and the money to fund it. Even short of that, though, as a "matter of public concern," this may be one of those "exceptional cases" alluded to above. It'd be interesting to see it argued.
- pyre 14y ago
  Why does the breaking of an employment contract need to turn into criminal charges, and get labelled as 'terrorism?'
  - brownbat 14y ago
    Note that it's labeled "terrorism" only in some interest group's "model bill." Random interest groups are allowed to call whatever they like "terrorism," and they're allowed to write poorly thought out bills. Also note that most of the bills are failing. Even Missouri, where the article says one passed, you're just required to notify law enforcement if you witness animal abuse, and offer them copies of your video: http://www.senate.mo.gov/12info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=92863 http://www.senate.mo.gov/12info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionTyp... It's a strange type of gag order that only compels speech. I mean, these are definitely still bills worth challenging, but the article seems to be embellishing a bit.

orbitur 14y ago

Isn't this a privacy issue? Going in to someone's private property and filming/recording them without their knowledge doesn't seem like it would have anything to do with the first amendment.

carbocation 14y ago
By that logic, don't we already have an enormous apparatus of laws that exist to protect the property owner? What would these bills add?
- orbitur 14y ago
  I'm not advocating for new laws, but I do not believe this is a first amendment issue.
  - carbocation 14y ago
    Sure it is. The proposed text of the "Animal Ecological Terrorism Act" provides for criminal penalties including jail time for violators. Why should the First Amendment not protect me from the state in this context?
    - pc86 14y ago
      Because you broke other pre-existing laws (trespassing, possibly breaking & entering, other violations of private property)?
      - carbocation 14y ago
        > By that logic, don't we already have an enormous apparatus of laws that exist to protect the property owner? What would these bills add?
      - uptown 14y ago
        "And employees who do something beyond the scope of their jobs could be charged with criminal trespass." So say an employee that's not an animal rights activist sees something deplorable and records it as evidence. Only then are they considered to have trespassed - flying in the face of whistle-blower protections that have been in-place in countless other industries for decades. If what's happening is a crime - and I believe animal cruelty still qualifies (even if it occurs on a farm) - at what point does someone that chooses to look the other way become a co-conspirator?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 14y ago

That would be relevant if the state governments were banning display of these videos. But free speech rights have never encompassed regulation of what you can do on private property without the consent of the property owner. It's not any more unconstitutional (note, as usual, the disclaimer that just because its constitutional doesn't mean its a good idea) to make a law that bans video taping on private farms than it is to make a law that bans me video taping your wife in the shower in your house.

trhtrsh 14y ago
Why do you need a law to ban something that is already illegal, or something that is intentionally protected by law? Trespassing and violating private legal activity is already illegal, and whistleblowing on criminal activity is protected by current law.
- rayiner 14y ago
  The point isn't that video tapers should be prosecuted as anything other than as trespassers. The point is that the constitutionality of the law derives from the same place. It is not an exercise of free speech to go onto private property to do pretty much anything.
  - mapster 14y ago
    then we can expect a cascade of similar legislation banning taping in non-profits (Acorn), pseudo-private areas, etc.?
    - cobrausn 14y ago
      Seems to me institutions like Acorn that accept the public as part of their operation can't really prosecute a whistleblower as a trespasser. I'm not sure what a pseudo-private area is. What raynier is saying (I think) is that if it is illegal to trespass, then it is illegal to trespass for purposes of whistleblowing because that is still trespassing - imagine if they had trespassed, filmed, and found nothing illegal. If one of the farm workers were to film the video, there would have been no trespassing - it would constitute whistleblowing.

SeanDav 14y ago

As an outsider, it appears to me that almost the entire US legal and political system is driven by, and for the benefit of, corporate and big business interests. The only other major factor at work seems to be fear - witness the ever increasing power of the TSA Probably appears worse than it is, but it does appear to be in a pretty sad state now. The Founding Fathers are probably turning in their graves.

coldtea 14y ago
>As an outsider, it appears to me that the almost the entire US legal and political system is driven by, and for the benefit of, corporate and big business interests. The only other major factor at work seems to be fear - witness the ever increasing power of the TSA Three factors driving law and politics in the US, IMNSHO: money: big business, work the system for profit fear: government works the system for more control selfism: citizens (neoliberals, Bible Belt, etc) working the system to ensure nothing will be done for the public good
maratd 14y ago
> As an outsider, it appears to me that the almost the entire US legal and political system is driven by, and for the benefit of, corporate and big business interests. This is the case in every country. Those at the top will take an inordinate amount of time to make rules that benefit themselves and their friends. The primary difference between the US and other countries is that the US constitution provides a means for the citizens to fight back against the most outrageous of offenses. Now, that doesn't mean it always works. In fact, it rarely does. But it does, in fact, work occasionally, which is better than nothing.
- herval 14y ago
  > The primary difference between the US and other countries is that the US constitution provides a means for the citizens to fight back against the most outrageous of offenses. What way does the US constitution provide that other countries don't (besides the firearms shenanigans)?
  - 14y ago

lifeisstillgood 14y ago

What with Thatchers passing, a Home Secretary wanting to abolish our signing up to the european human rights act, I just love the sound of those words tonight. +1 to Madison and Jefferson

bane 14y ago

The way that it's determined if these laws are congruent with the U.S. Constitution is for the infringed groups to take the case before SCOTUS. It's just the sad way it is, the Legislature is under no particular obligation to determine the Constitutionality of the laws it passes. Sucks, but that's the way it is.