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

71–80 of 95 posts

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

#71

Post by riffraff »

cageface wrote: post #66
ethbro wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People should know how the meat industry works but this reasoning seems extreme.

I am not comfortable watching women give birth, that doesn't mean I shouldn't have children.

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

#72

Post by ch4s3 »

riffraff wrote: post #71
cageface wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

People should know how the meat industry works but this reasoning seems extreme. I am not comfortable watching women give birth, that doesn't mean I shouldn't have children.

There might be a frequency issue here ;)

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

#73

Post by paulddraper »

cageface wrote: post #66
ethbro wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not comfortable watching people changing adult diapers, but I'll visit a nursing home.

I'm not comfortable watching people be killed, but I'll celebrate American Independence Day.

I'm not comfortable with watching surgery, but I'll undergo surgery.

There are loads of things I benefit from that I don't enjoy watching.

EDIT: FYI, I have butchered pigs, chickens, and rabbits.

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

#74

Post by paulddraper »

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.

> The meat industry isn't a person, it's an industry

I don't know what that means. "Industry" is people doing the same thing. Doesn't matter if it's one software programmer or one farmer or a bunch of them.

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

#75

Post by paulddraper »

I'm a Utahn, have lived next to several farms/butcher operations, and have slaughtered my own animals.

I don't understand how trespassing on other people's property could be anything but illegal.

Yes, yes, I've heard the retoric that the industry has bad guys and bad guys don't have rights. (So stop using encryption all you bad people!)

But that can't be the real reason, right? The KSL article is pretty brief. Anyone know the reason it was ruled that trespassing isn't trespassing if it's on a farm?

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

#76

Post by rayiner »

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.

I understand my comment was ambiguous; I meant that this was an appropriate time to say that if the industry has nothing to hide it has nothing to fear.

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

#77

Post by bediger4000 »

paulddraper wrote: post #75

I'm a Utahn, have lived next to several farms/butcher operations, and have slaughtered my own animals. I don't understand how trespassing on other people's property could be anything but illegal. Yes, yes, I've heard the retoric that the industry has bad guys and bad guys don't have rights. (So stop using encryption all you bad people!) But that can't be the real reason, right? The KSL article is pretty brief. Anyone…

Trespassing is illegal. I don't think that's what the judge ruled on. If someone trespasses, they should be penalized for trespassing.

Ag-gag laws are usually pretty different - they basically constitute prior constraint of free speech.

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

#78

Post by paulddraper »

bediger4000 wrote: post #77
paulddraper wrote: post #75

I'm a Utahn, have lived next to several farms/butcher operations, and have slaughtered my own animals. I don't understand how trespassing on other people's property could be anything but illegal. Yes, yes, I've heard the retoric that the industry has bad guys and bad guys don't have rights. (So stop using encryption all you bad people!) But that can't be the real reason, right? The KSL article is pretty brief. Anyone…

Trespassing is illegal. I don't think that's what the judge ruled on. If someone trespasses, they should be penalized for trespassing. Ag-gag laws are usually pretty different - they basically constitute prior constraint of free speech.

> The Utah Legislature approved a bill in 2012 that made it a class B misdemeanor to trespass on private livestock or poultry operations and record sound or images without the owner's permission. It also prohibited seeking employment with the intent of making those recordings. Leaving a recording device for that purpose was a class A misdemeanor. The law did not criminalize the possession or distribution of unlawful recordings, but focused on trespassing and filming while on the property, according to the state.

Ah. So I infer "trespass on private livestock or poultry operations" is still illegal, but the other formely prohibited actions are now okay.

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

#79

Post by sctb »

RodericDay wrote: post #48
wildmusings wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're a Trump supporter, and defend decisions such as his travel ban, and call people proposing a higher minimum wage "unhinged". I'm surprised that you're appalled by someone making a crass generalization. Maybe you only notice these kinds of vulgar pronunciations when they target things that are popular with right wingers?

This kind of incendiary personal attack is just about the last thing we need here. Please don't do this again.

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

#80

Post by wtallis »

tomjen3 wrote: post #68
colanderman wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No. Regulations on speech are not as easy to justify and enforce as regulations on other actions, because of the First Amendment.
Post reply on HN