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

81–90 of 157 posts

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

#81

Post by thaumasiotes »

IndianAstronaut wrote: post #64
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.

Law and politics don't handle cultural change well. Politics could but doesn't; the law can't really -- the whole point of the law is stability.

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

#82

Post by thaumasiotes »

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…

> 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?

Isn't this still legal under the various "wiretapping" laws prohibiting the recording of conversations without all parties' consent? Those are criminal laws.

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

#83

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

> 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.

Civilian law generally applies to active duty military personnel the same as to anyone else (though some laws have express exceptions or alternate provisions for military personnel), and the UCMJ even provides for the delivery of military personnel accused of violations of law by the civil authorities to be delivered to those authorities. [UCMJ Art. 14, 10 U.S.C. Sec. 814]

More to the point upthread, members of the military retain First Amendment rights, and military regulations have been struck down for violating the First Amendment.

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

#84

Post by rosser »

troym wrote: post #60
rosser wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm specifically making a distinction between the bad actors — people who commit an overtly abusive act — and the "thin blue line", which is cops who are aware of the abuses, but conceal or misrepresent what they've seen. The 46% you cite numbers among the latter. For all you know, though, the people those 46% are talking about having seen committing "misconduct" are the same folks over and over. I'm not downplaying…

I tend to agree with you and I understand the distinction you're making. And yet: > but conceal or misrepresent what they've seen. That's lying. They're accomplices to the abuse and worse, perpetual enablers of it. Apologies for veering the thread off-topic. I'm just bothered by the notion of "it's just a few bad apples."

Part of the value of making the distinction, IMO, is that the "accomplices", as you call them, are probably an easier and more effective place to attack the problem. Get people who aren't bad actors to speak out about (or even against) the bad actors, and the latter will have to modify their behavior, or will leave the force one way or another.

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

#85

Post by rayiner »

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?

Fun fact: the Bill of Rights didn't even apply to the states until 1925. At the time of the founding when the Constitution was presumably still all American and whatnot, a law like this to protect the unique interests of an agricultural state would've been kosher. There might have been a state constitutional issue, but those are much easier to amend.

The idea of a federal court striking down a law duly enacted by a state legislature (by more than 2/3 of each house) on the basis of the federal constitution, as happened here, would have been very disquieting to the framers.

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

#86

Post by Natsu »

x0054 wrote: post #70
CamperBob2 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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 n…

It's not that you lose them outright, but they can be deliberately waived in certain contexts. Here's an example:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/judge-nursing-student-wa...

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

#88

Post by rasz_pl »

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?!

It can be a lot worse. There was a huge surveillance scandal in Poland last year. Someone wired particular restaurant used by politicians and recorded tons of incriminating conversations (Polish Central Bank governor giving support to ruling political party in next elections by fudging budget numbers and so on).

Results: -police, prosecutor and intelligence service raided headquarter of newspaper that broke the story, assaulting and beating editor-in-chief http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27945687 -prosecutor immediately opened investigations into illegal wiretapping -full two months later prosecutor was forced to open investigation into actual content of tapes, this investigation was naturally quickly killed off. -head of government and political party implicated in leaked tapes was punished by ... jokes, he was awarded presidency over whole fucking European Council -new law passed making audio recordings All-party consent, and outlawing using as evidence any and all recordings made without court order :-) instant immunity from further wiretaps.

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

#89

Post by rayiner »

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.

Because abortion clinics don't create a ton of jobs in rural states with disproportionate electoral representation.

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

#90

Post by fredkbloggs »

Retric wrote: post #66
rayiner wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unfortunately, this decision did not abolish those subsidies. You seem to be talking about completely different problems.
Post reply on HN