7 ms·

Of all things, you would think that the first amendment would protect such a thing, can any lawyer weight on that? > The measure passed Idaho’s Senate earlier

• ithkuil 13y ago
  They probably think that privacy only means the right to not see you dirty secrets all over the news
• bobjordan 13y ago
  I consider myself a far left liberal and I certainly don't condone abusing farm animals. However, taking a paying job under falsified pretenses with a made up resume and then spending your working hours secretly filming internal operations for future public release with the sole goal of harming your employer, that is just sketchy. If you believe in the cause so much that you call it war - well understood. But protected behavior? Bullshit. This behavior should have risk of consequences.
  • ollysb 13y ago
    How does this play with the current whistleblower laws? Presumably longstanding employees would be protected. Where do you draw the line?
    • sitkack 13y ago
      It strikes me as an added thought crime. If I get a job in an ag business and after I get there am witness to moral, ethical and legal violations will I be subject to criminal prosecution because they claim I had prior intent? How do they prove that? That I am vegetarian? Seems like an easy way to persecute/prosecute the messenger.
  • wmeredith 13y ago
    It is not protected behavior. Laws like this bother me because there are already ways to go after these people (fraud, falsifying documents, etc...)
  • rmc 13y ago
    If it's in the public interest and exposes crimes and fraud then it's not as bad.
  • barik 13y ago
    I think what's alarming to me is that these actions by private citizens are necessary in the first place. If the problem is as widespread as the article seems to imply, then I think the industry should be more proactive and formally implement measures (such as allowing third-party but sanctioned "undercover" inspectors) to identify and address these abuses. But the cynic in me already suspects why the industry would never go for something like this voluntarily.
  • DanielBMarkham 13y ago
    It's beyond sketchy. As the "producer" of such a video, you can edit and cut it any way you want. You're effectively using the trust given to you from somebody to make a political propaganda video damaging their interests. EDIT: I've massively changed my comment because, after thinking this through a bit, the real problem here is that this is a political stunt masquerading as some kind of news story. Husband beats wife, it's a crime. He should be punished. Neighbor sneaks into house, taping husband beating wife, then publishes it online as part of taking apart husband's run at mayor, it's still a crime, but it's also a political stunt. The two are not mutually exclusive. So my response here is complex: bad workers get trained, dairy industry gets punished, activists get supported for First Amendment rights to publish -- then punished for invading private property and fraud. It's definitely a mixed bag, and not the good-guy-versus-bad-guy story AJ seems to want to make it out to be. And yes, there's no doubt the state legislature is protecting the dairy industry, but if this surprises you, you haven't taken a close look at the regulatory state we've been happily creating over the past 50 years. Most politicians would argue, either on or off the record, that this is exactly the kind of thing they get elected to do. This is their job.
    • resu_nimda 13y ago
      So how would you propose someone expose (what they consider to be) criminal or unjust practices? It's only ok if an impartial observer just happened to find themselves in the middle of a commercial farming operation with a video camera? I get that it sucks for someone to be acting in bad faith toward their employer, but isn't that justified and even necessary when the employer is acting in bad faith toward the populace? Obviously this is what Snowden did - he knew what he was doing, he didn't just stumble upon a pile of documents. But maybe you would describe what he did as sketchy, criminal, and wrong? Many have, of course. Edit: Well you heavily edited your comment while I wrote mine. But, I don't think the wife-beating analogy is valid, it brings in ulterior motives. In this situation there is no mayoral campaign to derail, they actually just wanted to expose the crimes because those are what they took issue with. Still don't understand your desire to demonize the whistleblower.
      • DanielBMarkham 13y ago
  • balls187 13y ago
    From what you've written, it sounds like it's not okay go undercover to expose abuse. I disagree. It's in the public's interest to expose this abuse, because the activity is inhumane, immoral, and likely illegal. It's not uncommon for journalists to go undercover to uncover the truth.
  • pkinsky 13y ago
    I draw the line at illegality. Activists filming distasteful but legal processes are sketchy. Activists filming animal abuse in cases where the government turns a blind eye should be encouraged. Ideally the government would perform this function, but I don't see that happening.
    • dhughes 13y ago
      That is what is wrong with this situation, someone with a camera chooses what to show or not show maybe there was an accident, maybe an inexperienced new employee or some technique that seems cruel but is necessary (de-horn, castrate, shear wool, horse shoes) but the film maker from a city finds disturbing. For example near where I live there is a "slaughterhouse" that use the same techniques as other similar slaughterhouses but the one near me gets a lot of press and outrage. The slaughterhouse I refer to is open to the outside it's on ice and it's seals not cow, bulls, pigs or chickens but it's the same process a bash on the head and then chop up the carcass. It just seems worse due to red blood on white ice and being out in the open not in a building.
  • jakobe 13y ago
    The goal isn't to "harm the employer", the goal is to expose their behavior. If exposing your "internal operations" harms you, the problem isn't person doing the exposing, the problem are the "internal operations". I find it fascinating how everytime someone makes scandalous practices public, people come on the scene to condemn the people who go to the public. If there is no legal way to publicise abhorrent practices, we must break the law. Especially if "breaking the law" is something as harmless as lying on a resume.
    • sentientmachine 13y ago
      This: "Illegal looking" law could be expanded later on to require hardware shutters on a persons eyes. So when they step on a farm, a machine checks to make sure your eyes are completely covered. Then later on, we may also have to make sure that the person visiting a farm also cannot hear, or smell, or touch, or taste. When you set foot on my property, any data you collect is not admissible in court. This could be a good thing. I want to make it illegal for people to collect any kind of data of what I do on my property. If you want to come see, then you'll have to talk to my secretary and pay a million dollars for an exclusive interview.
      • keeshawn 13y ago
        > This could be a good thing. I want to make it illegal for people to collect any kind of data of what I do on my property. If you want to come see, then you'll have to talk to my secretary and pay a million dollars for an exclusive interview. Become rich; purchase laws like this one from politicians. Your dream is reality!
  • ama729 13y ago
    To you and the other commenter: But how is that different from a journalist making the same thing? If it was false or showing the farmer having sex with his/her wife/husband/alien living in the attic, it would be understandable to ban it[0], but showing a number of abuse and the lack of oversight of a large company doesn't strike as particularly reprehensible. [0] Amusingly, these kind of things are NOT banned. Cue all the leaked sextapes of celebrities and those websites by Hunter Moore.
  • JohnTHaller 13y ago
    If by 'harm your employer' you mean 'expose the illegal, immoral, unethical, and unconscionable actions of a corporation and its employees', then I think myself and the vast majority of Americans are all for protecting that speech.
  • barrkel 13y ago
    Which is worse: taking a job under false pretenses, or abusing animals? The balance of the good seems clear to me.
    • balls187 13y ago
      Two wrongs do not make a right. FWIW however, I am a big proponent of exposing animal cruelty.
      • benched 13y ago
        I think that's an extremely childish level of morality.
        • balls187 13y ago
          Do you believe morality is universal or relative?
    • mindslight 13y ago
      I don't see how "taking a job under false pretenses" could even be considered an indictment in the context of at-will employment. The new employee is clearly doing their job, or they'd have been fired right away and escorted out. They just happen to have an internal motivation other than the paltry wage.
  • classicsnoot 13y ago
    I think you raise a valid point. Is there room in a Society of Laws for whistleblowers and warriors of conscience? Indeed, what do animal rights groups feel on this? No law is going to stop me from treating fellow humans with respect, and according that same respect to all life forms reliant on Humanity. I would not own slaves regardless of the Law [New England blood, we don't do that shit]. I would not litter if it was mandated by ordinance. I will not hate another religion or culture because our Dear Leader says they are evil.
• HeyLaughingBoy 13y ago
  As reprehensible as the abuse was, this not a First Amendment issue: farms are private property. It's the same way you can throw someone out of your house for saying things you don't like and they can't claim their First Amendment rights are being violated.
  • pyre 13y ago
    Can you currently convict someone of a felony for lying on their resume?
  • jellicle 13y ago
    You really shouldn't comment on an issue you know nothing about. The Ag-Gag laws have nothing to do with private property or private rights of action, they are felony criminal laws criminalizing certain kinds of speech, and there's currently at least one Constitutional challenge filed by a plaintiff who was arrested and charged with filming a farm from public property.
  • SixSigma 13y ago
    My first amendment rights would be violated if I was arrested and jailed for a year for saying something in your house you didn't like.
    • HeyLaughingBoy 13y ago
      Yes, they would. What's your point?
      • SixSigma 13y ago
        You claimed it was the same. It isn't because there's a year's jail and a $5k fine involved, thus making it a constitutional matter, not a private one.
        • HeyLaughingBoy 13y ago
          I think you should work on your reading comprehension. I said someone throwing you out of their house because of something you said was not a First Amendment issue, and it's not. I don't recall saying, or implying that a homeowner has the ability to jail someone or impose fines. If you are aware of that being the case, I'd certainly be interested in citations.
• brownbat 13y ago
  This is similar to the tort of public disclosure of private facts. (Libel protects me against you lying about me, but this tort protects against you publicizing my strange hobbies or sexual practices or other private practices so long as, and this is huge, there's no public interest). I know Idaho was a late adopter to the tort, while many other states committed the tort to statute. They may just be coming around. The best argument for harmonizing it with first amendment law is in a Yale Law Journal note from 1973: > [F]ree speech is protected not for some intrinsic value of speech but because it is a necessary condition for the making of informed decisions about matters of government, decisions which all citizens in a democracy are called on to make....He who performs his listening and deciding functions in a glass house is coerced by public opinion, whether anyone is actually looking in or not. If every magazine he reads, every rally he attends, every person he speaks to might somehow become a matter of public knowledge, he would feel inhibiting pressure. David B. Roe, "Privacy in the First Amendment," 82 Yale L.J. 1462. That said, some facts aren't merely private matters. If leading public figures are violating the law or lying to constituents or abusing their family, the public has a right to know. Farmers abusing animals is at least slightly harder, because whether or not that's a matter of public concern hinges on the conclusions we've made about animal rights. If we live in a world where animals are robotic automatons deserving of no relevant moral consideration, then these are probably private, embarassing facts that don't bear any exposure. If we live in a world where the pain and suffering of animals is valued very near as to the pain and suffering of humans, ie, heeding Peter Singer's allegations of "speciesism," then these are absolutely 100% public facts. We don't live in either of those worlds though. We live in this messy, complicated, in between world where we are still trying to figure out where animal rights rank between those two extremes. Probably the best argument that these are public facts would note that outlining the actual practices under consideration (ie, literal animal rape and torture) help us determine which part of that spectrum we're in, because it helps animal rights activists note that their depictions are not absurd hypotheticals. Probably the best argument on the other side is a claim that footage is cherry picked out of a much larger sample, that this activity happens exceedingly rarely, and the footage is closer to malicious slander or misrepresentation. (Not sure if that's true, but if it is, it would be a relevant consideration.)
  • classicsnoot 13y ago