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

61–70 of 157 posts

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

#61

Post by rayiner »

betenoire wrote: post #58
rayiner wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I strongly support the decision, in a place like Idaho, these laws aren't about corporate greed, although they certainly benefit corporations. Agriculture in these states is politically untouchable. In Idaho, agriculture and food processing is directly responsible for 6% of jobs and 7% of GDP. Accounting for service jobs supporting that sector doubles or triples that number. And in the rural counties that carry…

I don't understand your distinction.

Referencing "pure corporate protectionism" and "corporate greed" understates how much responsibility the electorate bears for these laws. It paints an easy but misleading narrative: that the problem is just some big agricultural corps throwing around lobbying dollars, when in reality you're talking about a very broad cross-section of the population whose livelihood is tied up with those corporate interests and who support such laws.

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

#62

Post by late2part »

nsajko wrote: post #31
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.

No it's not hard to say what's Constitutional. It's just hard to say that the Supreme Court will uphold the Constitution. We can disagree on what we each think it means, but it's not clear that the Supreme Court really knows either.

And [1] is a sort of self-authority granted.

[1] Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)

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

#64

Post by IndianAstronaut »

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…

This might sound odd, but I don't think death threats are actually that serious. This is actually pretty routine if you post any remotely controversial video on Youtube or make any statements against any group. People seem to use these random threats to bolster their cause or use it to their advantage.

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

#65

Post by tedunangst »

astrocat wrote: post #59
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…

Can someone elucidate why existing defamation laws don't cover this already?

Does the filmmaker have enough money to cover the farmer's losses? And does the farmer have enough money to hold out until they get paid?

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

#66

Post by Retric »

rayiner wrote: post #61
betenoire wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your distinction.

Referencing "pure corporate protectionism" and "corporate greed" understates how much responsibility the electorate bears for these laws. It paints an easy but misleading narrative: that the problem is just some big agricultural corps throwing around lobbying dollars, when in reality you're talking about a very broad cross-section of the population whose livelihood is tied up with those corporate interests and who su…

Ag in the US gets huge subsides even on exports which are vastly beyond its economic impact (~1% GDP). The reason for this is because it's focused in low population states which have massively disproportionate political power due to the way the house and senate are setup.

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

#67

Post by tedunangst »

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…

> Any politician who votes for or promotes any law that actively and intentionally seeks to violate the first amendment is guilty of treason.

Wow, that's going to be lots of fun. That would include every politician who voted for the campaign finance limits overturned by Citizens United. And every one who voted for the Affordable Care Act would have been on very thin ice, although the Hobby Lobby case ended up not being decided on 1st Amendment grounds.

Careful what you wish for.

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

#68

Post by cweagans »

vlunkr wrote: post #9
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).

As another Idaho resident, it will never stop being hilarious that the governor's name is "Butch" Otter. Doing his best to reinforce the redneck Idaho stereotypes.

Idaho is like the Alaska of the south.

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

#69

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> How about we pass another, federal law. Any politician who votes for or promotes any law that actively and intentionally seeks to violate the first amendment is guilty of treason.

Were Congress to pass a putative law which purported to do that, and were any effort made to enforce it, it would no doubt be quickly struck down by the federal courts for the cavalier way in which it flies directly in the face of U.S. Const., Art. III, Sec. 3, clause 1.

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

#70

Post by x0054 »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #48
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not exactly true, your freedom of speech rights are limited by UCMJ, especially under Articles 82, 88, and 134, but not eliminated. You still have a right to attend peaceful demonstrations and such. It is, however, shameful how we treat military men and women in this country. As far as I am concerned, they should have just as many rights as any one else.

Also, it's not really a counterexample, because you do not sign away your rights when you sign the enlistment papers, you loose some of your rights by simply being part of the military. People who where drafted back in the 60s also lost had their rights limited, even though they did not voluntarily sign any papers or agreed to anything.

Further, this is an act of the government, and not a civil contract. No CIVIL CONTRACT can take away ANY of your constitutional rights.

Post reply on HN