Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge rules Utah law banning undercover farm filming is unconstitutional

ksl.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 95 posts

Re: Judge rules Utah law banning undercover farm filming is unconstitutional

#61

Post by wcummings »

wildmusings wrote: post #47
microtherion wrote: post #2

So, combined with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14723415 that makes TWO rulings today affirming the right to record pigs…

That's a disgusting thing to say. Before calling police officers pigs, consider that they're the ones who show up to fight for your life when you need them. There's definitely ways to improve policing in America, but the vast majority of them are honorable people doing a dangerous job and serving their countrymen.

Maybe they show up and fight for your life but that's not a universal experience. Some people and communities rationally fear and dislike police officers.

Re: Judge rules Utah law banning undercover farm filming is unconstitutional

#62

Post by ethbro »

ch4s3 wrote: post #59
rayiner wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The meat processing industry is still extremely insulated, but let's hope this gets chipped away to reveal their secrets. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

The meat industry isn't a person, it's an industry. It shouldn't be able to hide practices that endanger human health and safety. This isn't a privacy issue, this is about protecting the ability of whistleblowers to speak out.

Devil's advocate from the other side: commercial farming and animal slaughter is a messy, ugly business to a lot of people. You could easily film an ethical operation and edit in such a way that people are shocked (shocked!!) that their steaks had eyes and felt pain.

So even without "human health and safety concerns", there are valid reasons for not showing graphic details.

That said, I absolutely think enforcing ethical animal treatment through public pressure on factory farming trumps right-not-to-know.

Re: Judge rules Utah law banning undercover farm filming is unconstitutional

#63

Post by briandear »

DanBC wrote: post #51
downandout wrote: post #28

Isn't trespassing, regardless of what you do once you are on private property without permission, already illegal? The video would just be evidence of the crime the person doing the filming committed by being there in the first place. It seems silly that there would need to be a separate law for this.

Many undercover films are made by people who have the landowners permission to be on the property. And isn't trespass a civil law thing, rather than a criminal law thing? So this law created a criminal component that could be charged.

Trespassing is a criminal offense in the same vein as breaking and entering.

Re: Judge rules Utah law banning undercover farm filming is unconstitutional

#64

Post by briandear »

Yet it is interesting that the undercover Planned Parenthood video guys where prosecuted. I am curious if the same sort of activists that applaud this decision also support anti-Planned Parenthood filmers.

The cynic in me would offer that very few activists actually care about free speech – only that their speech is free. It might seem that we are all hypocrites to some degree.

Re: Judge rules Utah law banning undercover farm filming is unconstitutional

#65

Post by briandear »

nickhalfasleep wrote: post #56

Besides the welfare of the animals, this is also important to the food safety and health of society to have clear insight into how food is produced.

It actually isn’t important that society have clear insight into how food is produced. What is important is that government enforced the health and safety regulations.

Does the public have the right to see the inside of the Boeing design lab? The Ford assembly line? How about a livestream of code being written that runs medical equipment?

The public doesn’t have a “right” to see that.

The militant vegan crowd would have the most humane slaughter in the history of the world featuring a cow that lived to a ripe old age eating nothing but grass imported from a Swiss meadow while listening to the soothing acoustic tunes of John Mayer – and they’d still portray that as if it were an ISIS beheading. Because they have an agenda and it isn’t “safety.”

The FDA and the Department of Agriculture have the job to ensure health and safety. Are we making an argument that they are failing? Based on population size and geographical size, the US has a very safe food supply.

These documentaries aren’t about food safety, let’s not be naïve.

Re: Judge rules Utah law banning undercover farm filming is unconstitutional

#66

Post by cageface »

ethbro wrote: post #62
ch4s3 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The meat industry isn't a person, it's an industry. It shouldn't be able to hide practices that endanger human health and safety. This isn't a privacy issue, this is about protecting the ability of whistleblowers to speak out.

Devil's advocate from the other side: commercial farming and animal slaughter is a messy, ugly business to a lot of people. You could easily film an ethical operation and edit in such a way that people are shocked (shocked!!) that their steaks had eyes and felt pain. So even without "human health and safety concerns", there are valid reasons for not showing graphic details. That said, I absolutely think enforcing eth…

If people aren’t comfortable watching animals being slaughtered maybe they shouldn’t eat them.

Re: Judge rules Utah law banning undercover farm filming is unconstitutional

#67

Post by Kadin »

ethbro wrote: post #62
ch4s3 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The meat industry isn't a person, it's an industry. It shouldn't be able to hide practices that endanger human health and safety. This isn't a privacy issue, this is about protecting the ability of whistleblowers to speak out.

Devil's advocate from the other side: commercial farming and animal slaughter is a messy, ugly business to a lot of people. You could easily film an ethical operation and edit in such a way that people are shocked (shocked!!) that their steaks had eyes and felt pain. So even without "human health and safety concerns", there are valid reasons for not showing graphic details. That said, I absolutely think enforcing eth…

None of those arguments really wash. If an industry depends on hiding its typical (or even exemplary!) operations from the general public, because of fear that people might not buy the industry's products if they knew what was involved in its production, that only builds the case for making sure the public knows what's going on. That reaction is basically proof that something the public is interested in, is being hidden.

The public interest absolutely trumps some sort of business-model protection. In fact the only exclusions I can think of to that involve trade secrets provisions, but typically there IIRC there are fairly narrow definitions of what can be protected.

Re: Judge rules Utah law banning undercover farm filming is unconstitutional

#68

Post by tomjen3 »

colanderman wrote: post #26
arthur_trudeau wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's quite the unsupported claim, which is why I wish I could find the decision. Enhancing penalties in certain situations is incredibly common, even with respect to trespassing - trespassing in certain industrial facilities, or in connection with a conspiracy, or involving breaking and entering, all have increased penalties. I don't really see the rationale for not being able to extra-criminalize trespassing for t…

In general, application of law must be blind to speech. Yes, trespassing with intent to burgle could lawfully have a greater penalty. Trespassing while shouting "Trump has tiny hands" cannot. This is what "free speech and equal protection" means, and the courts have decided that this applies here.

Wouldn't the limit be that you said something? Eg. if I come into your home and yell something loudly enough to wake you up and destroy your nights sleep, then that should have a higher penalty than just coming into your home?

Re: Judge rules Utah law banning undercover farm filming is unconstitutional

#70

Post by ch4s3 »

ethbro wrote: post #62
ch4s3 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The meat industry isn't a person, it's an industry. It shouldn't be able to hide practices that endanger human health and safety. This isn't a privacy issue, this is about protecting the ability of whistleblowers to speak out.

Devil's advocate from the other side: commercial farming and animal slaughter is a messy, ugly business to a lot of people. You could easily film an ethical operation and edit in such a way that people are shocked (shocked!!) that their steaks had eyes and felt pain. So even without "human health and safety concerns", there are valid reasons for not showing graphic details. That said, I absolutely think enforcing eth…

I believe exacerbating information asymmetry about exchange goods and services is anathema to free exchange goods and services.
Post reply on HN