6 ms·

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?
      • btipling 14y ago
        Whistleblower laws would protect this individual.
        • jellicle 14y ago
          You 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 ago
            This 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.
            • trhtrsh 14y ago
              "Professional" is bad enough. "Criminal" is far worse.
            • tptacek 14y ago
              It's not quite that simple; many US states have a "public policy" exception to at-will employment that allows you to sue if you're terminated or constructively terminated in retaliation for whistleblowing.
          • mweisbrod 14y ago
            in response to pc86: professional retribution is fine. That is like getting fired. Going to jail and being labelled a terrorist is not professional retribution.
        • Retric 14y ago
          The most recent law takes precedence, so this may remove Whistleblower protection.
        • tedks 14y ago
          Whistleblower laws protect no one. For one, there is no such thing as unified "whistleblower laws." There are whistleblower laws in various states covering various domains, forming a legal morass that is near impossible for a human to navigate unaided. But more importantly, abiding by every one of these laws still results in years of legal limbo under attack from the superhumanly powerful entity that you as a moral person managed to piss off, bankrupting you, ending your marriage, and making you a damaged, nervous wreck. No whistleblower says they'd do it again if they had the choice. This is the protection your laws provide. I sadly can't yet link to a source, and am not sure how much I can say about how I know this, but I will say there'll be a great article out in a month or so on this topic in a major print publication.
    • glesica 14y ago
      Then the person should be prosecuted for trespass. Still doesn't make it OK to violate their free speech rights...
      • dbpatterson 14y ago
        and certainly not for "terrorism"