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

141–150 of 157 posts

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

#141

Post by bayesianhorse »

salmonellaeater wrote: post #130
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…

I can sympathize with the farmers because it's really hard to have a rational conversation in the face of strong emotional reactions to graphic imagery. People feel empathy for many things they shouldn't, such as robots[1], and the feeling of empathy is not a reliable way to determine something's moral status. Nevertheless, the natural way people make decisions on moral issues like this is to accept their emotional r…

Battery cages do constitute animal cruelty in most senses of the word. The natural behavior of the hens is widely modified, injuries from the equipment/cage are the norm rather than the exception, and you could go on and on.

So, "empathy" towards chickens in these systems isn't just anthropomorphism or oversensitivity.

A lot of the same reasoning applies to dairy farms, but there the issues get more complicated.

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

#142

Post by bayesianhorse »

rasz_pl wrote: post #88
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…

Well, technically, if it wasn't a journalist, but a police investigator, who wired the restaurant without a warrant, people would have been outraged about the privacy breach, regardless of the success of the recordings...

So, in part, this pretty much the legislation privacy advocates call for, though passed with different intentions and motivations...

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

#143

Post by bayesianhorse »

mtgx wrote: post #2

What happens when a treaty such as the TPP or TTIP says that you can jail people for investigating animal abuse? I assume this kind of ruling would be irrelevant then?

TPP or TTIP don't allow any jailing. It's just not their jurisdiction. In fact, both the European Union and the US have strict opinions on free speech, and it is unlikely that the EU would try to force US legislators to put away more of their own people (the US is already very good at that, thank you), even if it had any means to do so....

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

#144

Post by bayesianhorse »

guelo wrote: post #7
RexRollman wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The judge ruled it unconstitutional. I don't believe that even the TPP can override such a ruling (assuming it is not ultimately overturned by a higher court).

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.

That's BS, I have to say. Trade agreements can't bulldoze constitutional freedoms.

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

#145

Post by bayesianhorse »

pdabbadabba wrote: post #13
mtgx wrote: post #2

What happens when a treaty such as the TPP or TTIP says that you can jail people for investigating animal abuse? I assume this kind of ruling would be irrelevant then?

This is an interesting question. But do you have any source for the proposition that TPP or TTIP actually says this? There is plenty of stuff in these treaties that I don't like, but this particular claim does not strike me as very plausible. But I could be wrong!

There's plenty of stuff rumored to be in TPP or TTIP which people don't like. Also there is a lot of confusion about initial/temporary negotiation positions and what's actually going to be in there.

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

#146

Post by alexivanovs »

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…

Screw you man. You have zero idea on what you're actually talking about. As you say; you're full of shit. Lets leave it at that. You think anyone cares for a bunch of people, versus the countless cruel acts done against animals in the conditions that they're being done in?

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

#147

Post by mcv »

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…

While the problems you mention are serious, the law doesn't seem to do anything to address them. It just tries to prevent the only good thing that happened here: addressing the actual abuses that happened.

Of course if a dairymen are worried about abuses coming to light and hurting their reputation, the right response would be for them to prevent those abuses in the first place, to bring them to light themselves, and to report employees who violate the rules. Nobody has access to the facility like the owner. If an undercover investigator can do it, then so can the dairyman.

Claiming to care about the animals doesn't mean much when the animals you claim to care about are being mistreated. Plenty of people who work with animals mistreat them, and that's something that needs to stop.

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

#148

Post by kelnos »

rayiner wrote: post #85
x0054 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

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.

I very much doubt that's the case: if so, they were fairly stupid. Giving federal courts the ability to strike down state laws is necessary when we have the Commerce Clause. It's about balance: kill the Commerce Clause, and you can let the states sort it out (e.g. California could say, "ok, Idaho, you want to pass a law that unjustly jails people for reporting on agricultural criminal activity... fine, go for it, but we're going to ban imports of all your goods into our state"). Keep the Clause, and you need something to check potentially-abusive state power.

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

#149

Post by kelnos »

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)

You're contradicting yourself. The idea of people disagreeing on the meaning of various bits of the Constitution is the very definition of it being hard to say what's Constitutional.

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

#150

Post by davidgerard »

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…

You do know the judge in this case grew up on a dairy farm, right. http://blogs.idahostatesman.com/otters-blast-at-judge-winmil...
Post reply on HN