Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Federal Judge Strikes Down Idaho ‘Ag-Gag Law’

shadowproof.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 157 posts

Re: Federal Judge Strikes Down Idaho ‘Ag-Gag Law’

#31

Post by nsajko »

x0054 wrote: post #27

Yet another example of waking up in the morning (late night last night), opening HN, clicking on the article, and doing a spit-take of my morning tea. It's good that they overturned it, but it was LEGAL at some point to jail people for releasing truthful information about actual crimes taking place? In America? And it's still LEGAL in some states? How about we pass another, federal law. Any politician who votes for o…

Just remember that even the Supreme Court's opinion changes through the ages, so it's hard to say for sure that a law violates the Constitution.

Re: Federal Judge Strikes Down Idaho ‘Ag-Gag Law’

#32

Post by mc32 »

x0054 wrote: post #27

Yet another example of waking up in the morning (late night last night), opening HN, clicking on the article, and doing a spit-take of my morning tea. It's good that they overturned it, but it was LEGAL at some point to jail people for releasing truthful information about actual crimes taking place? In America? And it's still LEGAL in some states? How about we pass another, federal law. Any politician who votes for o…

What if these kinds of laws are passed via some kind of referendum? Grassroots initiative process based? These kinds of seemingly whacky laws aren't always pushed thru by conglomerates but by local support, like coal in west Virginia.

Re: Federal Judge Strikes Down Idaho ‘Ag-Gag Law’

#33

Post by CamperBob2 »

x0054 wrote: post #25
Natsu wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Treaties actually become the 'supreme law of the land' but where and how they can override other things is a bit murky. I don't think they'll exactly let them sign away Consitutional rights via treaty, but sometimes I wonder. Anyhow, there's a good review of the (complicated) subject here: http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/01/limits-on-the-treaty-pow... Honestly, I would think it more likely that private contracts, pa…

That's not true, you can NEVER sign away your first amendment right. Your first amendment right protects you against government, not private action. If you violate an NDA, your employer has the right to fire you and to sue you for damages, but the government will NOT have the right to jail you. Though, in some circumstances people have been jailed for violating court order to not disclose information, but they are ja…

Join the military, then see how far your First Amendment rights extend.

Re: Federal Judge Strikes Down Idaho ‘Ag-Gag Law’

#34

Post by Lawtonfogle »

ohitsdom wrote: post #23

Don't know where I've been but this is the first I've heard of ag-gag laws. Absolutely absurd, bordering on unbelievable. How has this crap been passed in multiple states?!

You start by deciding the First Amendment allows the government to ban certain speech, likely by picking something no one would be opposed to banning. You then take precedence and use it to ban speech you were targeting from the start.

Re: Federal Judge Strikes Down Idaho ‘Ag-Gag Law’

#35

Post by slxh »

rqebmm wrote: post #10
guelo wrote: post #6

I was thinking about this law during the recent Planned Parenthood undercover video stuff, as in why does the food industry get more protection than medical clinics. But what I still don't understand is how any of these undercover videos are legal under regular wiretapping laws. I always thought you have to get a party's consent to record them.

In the US, it depends on the state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#One-p...

Does it depend on the state if you only record video (no audi)? I think that laws need updating to include video (at least in those states requiring consent for audio).

Re: Federal Judge Strikes Down Idaho ‘Ag-Gag Law’

#36

Post by msandford »

vonmoltke wrote: post #17
guelo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under these treaties it doesn't matter if a law is based on the constitution or not. If the trade courts rule that a country's law violates the treaty the country will be punished via trade protectionisms such as quotas or import taxes.

Actually, it does. The Supreme Court has held that all "acts of Congress" must be in accordance with the Constitution. Ratifying a treaty is an act of Congress. Thus, if Congress ratifies a treaty that imposes requirements on the US that violate the US Constitution, the court can hold that ratification to be invalid. Thus far, no actual treaty has ever been invalidated; the closest is an executive agreement in Reid v…

I think the point the parent was trying to make is that what's legal in the US doesn't make a whit of difference to how other countries treat us.

In other words, we can't force other countries to not all agree to raise tariffs on goods that they import from the US. The constitution doesn't matter, because they are foreign governments. Our laws have no bearing there.

If that wasn't the case then any country could use their laws to force people in other countries to do whatever. Certain activities would be both required and banned at the same time. Here in the US it's illegal to coerce a voter, and in Australia voting is mandatory. There's no way to reconcile those two laws.

Re: Federal Judge Strikes Down Idaho ‘Ag-Gag Law’

#37

Post by cwbrandsma »

Pxtl wrote: post #18
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe if you guys elected that biker who debated in a leather jacket things would have been different. Or at least more interesting. ;)

Wait, you're telling me that a guy named "Butch" isn't the leather-jacket biker guy? How can you be named "Butch" and not be a biker? Idahoans, explain yourselves!

Idahoan here: I don't think anyone said he wasn't a biker...but it seems he really likes his horses better. Dude tries really hard to keep his cowboy persona fresh.

Re: Federal Judge Strikes Down Idaho ‘Ag-Gag Law’

#38

Post by AnimalMuppet »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #33
x0054 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true, you can NEVER sign away your first amendment right. Your first amendment right protects you against government, not private action. If you violate an NDA, your employer has the right to fire you and to sue you for damages, but the government will NOT have the right to jail you. Though, in some circumstances people have been jailed for violating court order to not disclose information, but they are ja…

Join the military, then see how far your First Amendment rights extend.

But (if I understand correctly) in the military, you aren't subject to civilian law. You're subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and civilian law does not apply to you.

Re: Federal Judge Strikes Down Idaho ‘Ag-Gag Law’

#39

Post by JoshTriplett »

x0054 wrote: post #27

Yet another example of waking up in the morning (late night last night), opening HN, clicking on the article, and doing a spit-take of my morning tea. It's good that they overturned it, but it was LEGAL at some point to jail people for releasing truthful information about actual crimes taking place? In America? And it's still LEGAL in some states? How about we pass another, federal law. Any politician who votes for o…

It's still the law of record in some other countries to prevent all reporting about trials and defendants before a conviction.

Re: Federal Judge Strikes Down Idaho ‘Ag-Gag Law’

#40

Post by TillE »

saalweachter wrote: post #26

Laws like this are a fantastic example of people trying to avoid a moral argument. Whether or not chickens are of moral consequence is an argument that can be had; it is perfectly reasonable to for the owners of these factory farms to either argue that chickens are not of moral consequence and deserve no more protection or consideration than the rocks in a quarry or that the methods they use are moral and do not cons…

There are a surprising number of people in the world who know what they're doing looks terrible, and usually is terrible. Like Vedanta Resources operating a mine in Zambia that causes horrific pollution to the local area, to pick just the most recent example that comes to mind.

It's important to consider every issue carefully, but if you're looking for good intentions or honest arguments, you will very frequently be disappointed.

Post reply on HN