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

71–80 of 157 posts

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

#71

Post by dragonwriter »

late2part wrote: post #62
nsajko wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Determining what a law means is an essential part of resolving controversies under that law, and Art. III expressly extends the judicial authority of the United States, vested in the Supreme Court and subordinate courts, to, among other things, all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution. "Judicial review" is simply resolving cases and controversies arising under the Constitution, and could not be more express of a power.

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

#72

Post by x0054 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #69
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. Co…

Would you not consider active and intentional erosion of the very cornerstone of the United States Constitution an act of War against the union. Couldn't one argue that by undermining the very definition of what makes America America, these people are directly giving aid to our enemies, what ever those might be?

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

#73

Post by yellowapple »

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…

I'm with you on "votes for", but not on "promotes", since charging promoters of laws which violate the First Amendment with treason would in and of itself be a violation of the First Amendment.

(Note that I'm assuming "promote" to be defined as "communicate a desire for"; should other definitions be applicable, said definitions may be more or less subject to First Amendment protections)

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

#74

Post by neurotech1 »

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.

There has been a few cases of military "whistleblowers" contacting their Congressional representative. Trying to restrict such contact I'm almost certain is a violation of the UCMJ. Contacting the Army/Navy/AF/DoD-OIG is another method of contact that is protected by Federal law.

Its not unheard of for senior officers' careers to be ended after a negative OIG report.

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

#75

Post by netfire »

tedunangst wrote: post #65
astrocat wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

So, are you suggesting we should eliminate or limit 1st amendment rights in cases where the parties involved in defamation wouldn't have the money to cover the defamed's losses?

If the film is popular (and therefore does more damage), the filmmaker will probably have the means to adequately compensate the farmer. If it isn't popular, it probably won't do much damage to the farmer.

Limiting free speech isn't a good solution.

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

#76

Post by yellowapple »

cweagans wrote: post #68
vlunkr wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you trying to suggest that Idaho is part of the "south"? Or are you suggesting that Idaho is sufficiently-far north for southerners to be equivalent to Alaska?

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

#77

Post by x0054 »

tedunangst wrote: post #67
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 bei…

Well, that's where the "intentionally" part comes into play. People who voted for the campaign finance limits or the ACA, were not seeking to limit speech. Not every law that is eventually found to violate the first amendment right to free speech intended to do so. But laws like in the OP are specifically designed to silence speech. Any way, it was a half joking outrage at the state of our union, not a real proposal :)

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

#78

Post by marricks »

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…

I'm a vegan (ergo completely opposed to your industry), but I get where you're coming from. It's your livelihood, and it's probably been your family's lively hood.

Here's the thing though, the vast majority of where the US gets it's milk from is less of a farm nowadays and more of a factory, that's why milk production efficiency has shot up in the past 100 years --because we started treated these animals more and more like objects using practices such as "rape racks" to keep cows constantly pregnant and producing peak amounts of milk.

We also bred them to produce so much milk their bodies are basically spent after 4 years (20% of their natural life span), and we kill them. We could quibble over minor differences in the numbers and terms but that's not my point, I'm pretty sure you can agree those are common practices on farms where the majority of US citizens get their milk. Capitalism has gotten right up in this farming eked every ounce of efficiency out of these animals so there's no space for any compassion.

There's so much broken there, and I don't want you and your friends jobless, I want you on better jobs not based on exploiting poor animals. Hell, we give billions of dollars in subsidies to dairy farmers, that money should be spent helping transition. That's just my take, I'm sure you get exposed to a lot of the vocal minority vegans, the vegans I know don't hate the people, just the system.

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

#79

Post by tedunangst »

netfire wrote: post #75
tedunangst wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

So, are you suggesting we should eliminate or limit 1st amendment rights in cases where the parties involved in defamation wouldn't have the money to cover the defamed's losses? If the film is popular (and therefore does more damage), the filmmaker will probably have the means to adequately compensate the farmer. If it isn't popular, it probably won't do much damage to the farmer. Limiting free speech isn't a good so…

I withdraw my suggestion.

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

#80

Post by dragonwriter »

x0054 wrote: post #72
dragonwriter wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Co…

Would you not consider active and intentional erosion of the very cornerstone of the United States Constitution an act of War against the union. Couldn't one argue that by undermining the very definition of what makes America America, these people are directly giving aid to our enemies, what ever those might be?

Yeah, that's exactly the kind of "anything that I think harms the country is Treason" logic that the Constitutional definition of Treason was put into place to negate, the trend of defining new and creative forms of "treason" having been familiar to the founders.

Treason's not a hammer to beat your political opponents over the head with. Electoral accountability and separation of powers between the branches is the control on unconstitutional laws, not Treason prosecutions.

And, on a more practical level, if you don't have the federal executive and the judiciary on your side, your new federal "Treason" definition does you no good against politicians pushing laws that would violate the first amendment. But if you have the federal executive and judiciary on your side, all the laws violating the first amendment in the world that can be passed aren't going to have any effect. So, aside from its unconstitutionality and undesirability on a theoretical level, there are in practice no situations where your law would both (a) be needed, and (b) have any effect.

Post reply on HN