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

41–50 of 157 posts

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

#41

Post by giltleaf »

mc32 wrote: post #32
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.

That doesn't seem to be the case with Ag-Gag laws.

"Ag-Gag laws are notoriously unsupported by the public. Nationwide thirty-two similar Ag-Gag measures have failed. Currently, seven states have Ag-Gag laws on the books. This Idaho decision is just the first step in defeating similar Ag-Gag laws across the country." http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/4001/idaho...

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

#42

Post by cwbrandsma »

I'm mixed on this. For background, I'm from Idaho and the son of a dairyman in this state. I know the intimate details of how this law came about, I know the dairyman whose operation was filmed, and I've seen the film. From the viewpoint of the guys in ag, their concern is more about the lies that got spilled out over the initial film, and the death threats that came afterwards.

Couple of side facts: * some of the employees were rightfully jailed for animal cruelty. * the dairyman in question has been receiving death threats ever since, even tho he is not personally responsible for the actions films, and he fired the offending employees soon after. (note, this is not a small dairyman, he has +300 employees, you can't personally monitor everyone all of the time). * the film has been redubbed constantly to attack other operations -- even tho they weren't filmed. * Most of the dairymen in this state are sole operators, or family owned. If you say "corporate owned farm", you aren't talking about my region, or we have a difference of opinion as to what constitutes a corporation.

The Good: * it was a bad law, it needed to be revoked, even the dairymen in this state were uneasy about it. What got it passed quickly were all the death threats against the owner. Lawmakers were very concerned about that spreading.

The Bad: * The dairymen in the state aren't worried about filming, they are worried about lies coming from it. Some groups are actively hell-bent against them. I've seen them, I've talked with them. The worst have no problem saying anything, because there won't be repercussions. * As most of the dairies are really sole operators, they are very concerned about their reputation and having that get away from them. Often the dairymen see it as "someone else's lies against them in a world where no one is going to believe them".

I understand someone will see what I wrote and say I'm full of shit, oh well I guess. But understand, these people are my friends and family. I see and hear their struggles, and I watch them take care of their animals. Most actually do care for them, but at the same time, have to struggle with running a business that depends on those animals. You don't work with animals because you hate animals.

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

#43

Post by Natsu »

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…

> Though, in some circumstances people have been jailed for violating court order to not disclose information, but they are jailed for contempt of court, NOT the disclosure it self.

So, if I understand this properly, you're saying that the government can't make you sign away your first amendment rights, but they can order you not to speak ('disclose information') and then jail you?

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

#44

Post by PretzelPirate »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #11
cweagans wrote: post #8

As an Idaho resident, I'm very grateful that this was struck down. It's a terrible idea. Too bad Butch (governor) can't tell the difference between right and wrong when his corporate sponsors are involved (which is always).

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

Wouldn't the guy in the leather jacket want to continue having cheap leather? Cheap leather comes from factory farming. The same farms that support Ag-Gag laws.

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

#45

Post by jobu »

themartorana wrote: post #4

Thank you, Judge B. Lynn Winmill, of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. Let your name be repeated and known as someone that does away with laws bordering on absurdism and pure corporate protectionism. That this even needed to be reviewed because it passed state legislatures is insane. That it's a law mimicked by many states is very seriously disturbing. It means that there are hundreds or mor…

"The remedy for misleading speech, or speech we do not like, is more speech, not enforced silence," Winmill declared.

Very well said.

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

#46

Post by pnut »

As usual, this traces back to ALEC http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/the-animal-and-ecologi...

Browse through their catalogue for some additional ideological templates such as * Capital Gains Tax Elimination * Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment * "Freedom" from forcing utilities to use renewable sources * Flat tax * Law preventing towns from requiring food health labeling * "Free Contract in Financing Act" repeals usury laws * "Intrastate Coal and Use Act" exempts states from EPA regulation * the "Living Wage Mandate Preemption Act" no explanation necessary * "Pre-emption of Local Agriculture Laws Act"

and hundreds more!

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

#47

Post by rosser »

cwbrandsma wrote: post #42

I'm mixed on this. For background, I'm from Idaho and the son of a dairyman in this state. I know the intimate details of how this law came about, I know the dairyman whose operation was filmed, and I've seen the film. From the viewpoint of the guys in ag, their concern is more about the lies that got spilled out over the initial film, and the death threats that came afterwards. Couple of side facts: * some of the em…

Just like with police abuses, the fix for the problem is to shine as bright a light as possible on it until it's understood and can be addressed. For many people, at least, a clear understanding that not all cops are bad actors — that, in fact, the bad actors constitute an overwhelming minority of the population. (But also, unfortunately, that the problem in that case is exacerbated by the "thin blue line".)

Blocking people from talking about it — you know, "prior restraint" — is emphatically not the solution.

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

#48

Post by CamperBob2 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #38
CamperBob2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

(Shrug) The assertion was that there is no way for a citizen to sign away their First Amendment rights. The UCMJ is a valid counterexample.

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

#49

Post by rosser »

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…

Oh, it actually gets much worse than ID's law. WY, for example, has managed to class this sort of thing ("fraudulently" getting a job in a meat packing plant in order to surreptitiously film their operations for documentary purposes) as an act of terrorism, with all the legal implications that follow from that.

EDIT: Doing some fact-checking, I'm unable to substantiate this claim, beyond ALEC's "model law", written in 2002, called, the "Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act", and a number of proposed and sponsored bills in state legislatures, none of which appear to have passed with "terrorism" verbiage intact. Sorry for the noise.

Summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag

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

#50

Post by Rayearth »

msandford wrote: post #36
vonmoltke wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"To boost the British economy I'd tax all foreigners living abroad."
Post reply on HN