6 ms·
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
by 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 agoBy 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 agoI'm not advocating for new laws, but I do not believe this is a first amendment issue.
- carbocation 14y agoSure 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 agoBecause 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?
- btipling 14y agoWhistleblower laws would protect this individual.
- jellicle 14y agoYou perhaps think the United States has some sort of generic whistleblower protection laws. This is not the case. What you may be thinking of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act which only applies to Federal agency employees.
- pc86 14y agoThis is an important distinction. To the best of my knowledge, individuals who are not Federal employees that engage in whistleblowing do so with the very real possibility that there will be permanent professional retribution.
- glesica 14y agoThen the person should be prosecuted for trespass. Still doesn't make it OK to violate their free speech rights...
- dbpatterson 14y agoand certainly not for "terrorism"
- Xodarap 14y agoIf you invite me over to your house and I happen to see a dead body on the floor, the first amendment doesn't prevent me from reporting you to the police.
- pvaldes 14y agoweeeeeell...mmmh, even if is a bird corpse? Are we comparing a dead chick with a dead chicken?
- FireBeyond 14y agoIf I see direct evidence that you committed animal abuse to kill it, then yes, even then.
- pvaldes 14y agoAnd if I see direct evidence that you commited plant abuse to kill it, can I call the police also? I want also to manipulate the other people with my elastic god-rules, created for the ocassion, like vegans do. Hey a dead cactus, in a minuscule pot... call the FBI!
- jlgreco 14y agoThere are animal abuse laws on the book right now. If there are plant abuse laws, then feel free to report plant abuse that you observe while trespassing. For that matter, feel free to report plant abuse even if there are not laws against it, just don't expect anyone to care.
- pvaldes 14y ago> just don't expect anyone to care. And this the sad fact that I want to stress. Most people see only an invented and small part of the reality. Plants are much more important to the humans that animals. To classify a living organism as good because it has neurons and can emit noises (like a clam?) or bad because it has chloroplasts instead and can not move quickly (like a Mimosa?) is a real nonsense. Inherited stupidity. Same as to protect common animals with four legs but to crush rare animals with six legs. Same as to call the police because we can not stand that somebody kills a chicken and feeling soo virtuous eating soy that was cultivated killing thousands of animals and plants. Same as to ignore that we, humans, are omnivores, and our gut is neither a moral nor amoral structure. Plants provide the 99% of the energy that moves the chain food and that permits the human life on this planet. Plants provide water, and we, the people, are made of more than 60% of pure water. We should be grateful to those magnificient creatures... Yes, we can argue that plants can not cry... and what's the big fuss? We don't expect a lattice singing opera. We are just scratching the surface about the complex plant communication (chemical, electrical)... So we chomp, ignore, cut down and poison the plants, and protect the animals that are plant eaters until the exhaustion of the resources... yep, human moral.
- nkozyra 14y agoWait, was this necessarily without their knowledge? It seems like the proposed legislation targets people who get jobs under the guise of normal employment but are really there to film. This takes away the "trespassing" thing that's getting bandied about ... there are certainly whistleblower protections for regular employees, are those out the window?
- pyre 14y agoHow is this any different from other investigative journalism? Why is "getting film of what happens behind closed doors" need to be called "terrorism?"
- goostavos 14y agoPerhaps I'm just cynical, but I would assume to make it less pleasurable to vote against. It's not tough to imagine a blurb come election cycle along the lines of "Senator X voted against anti-terrorism bills designed to keep us safe! Senator Y strongly cares about your safety, and the safety of the Nation. Vote Y. Vote America."
- trhtrsh 14y agoRight, and that's why this lawmaking behavior is so wrong.
- jdietrich 14y agoNo. If you're selling meat to the public, they have a right to know how that meat was produced. Farmers and slaughterhouses have no right to privacy, or their right to privacy is completely over-ridden by the right of their customers to know what they are buying.
- Jun8 14y ago"Farmers and slaughterhouses have no right to privacy" This position is indefensible, I think. By the same token any institution that produces a product that somehow impacts customers should have no right to privacy. Having corporate privacy and being regulated are related but different things.
- jchrisa 14y agoIt's not indefensible, it's radical. IMHO almost all productive enterprise should be 100% transparent. Good luck convincing the world of that. But most rational analysis of capitalism will get you to that conclusion.
- mapster 14y agoin part yes. at the same time, anyone using this argument for farms/ag is trying to conceal misdeeds, not trade secrets. Farms etc., house animals, which are protected by laws. The operation is not private such as your home is. Equally, a worker at a paper mill should be able to video and report illegal chemical dumping or worker safety issues. The bottom line is that the prosecution processes aided by whistle-blower testimony is broken, requiring long investigations and, to play devil's advocate, wrongful accusations and financial harm to a business.