3 ms·
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 ma
by 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 agoYou'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 agoJust 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.