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

Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

america.aljazeera.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 138 posts

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#61

Post by [deleted] »

randomdata wrote: post #54
keeshawn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My hypothetical rape dungeon is private property, too. I would expect my right to privacy is trumped by the general public's right to not have horrifying crimes committed. If you run an operation like this and someone blows a whistle, they should be legally protected, not prosecuted.

If I stumbled upon you committing a crime in your rape dungeon, recorded and made videos of it public, I would fully expect negative consequences to come my way. For one, the victim probably doesn't want those images shown to others. It seems to me that the more logical course of action would be to report you to the police and let them deal with it, not try to shame you in public.

[deleted]

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#62

Post by Dylan16807 »

Jach wrote: post #56
Dylan16807 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you don't watch the video yourself, how can you trust a description to be accurate, and then form your own opinion on whether such acts (and undercover filming of such acts) should be illegal? What are you talking about? I explicitly said the description is too vague to make meaningful conclusions about.

I guess I should have s/ a / any /. The description may have said "The video depicts a man repeatedly inserting a hot iron into the cow's vagina", which to me doesn't seem very vague, but isn't what happened in that video. "Fondling" is appropriate but as you say somewhat vague. So how are you supposed to know without watching the video?

I was fishing for a slightly better description, maybe half a sentence or so, and then I was going to trust it. The specific case isn't critical enough for me to feel the need to verify by watching an unpleasant video.

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#63

Post by jellicle »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #52
ama729 wrote: post #6

Of all things, you would think that the first amendment would protect such a thing, can any lawyer weight on that? > The measure passed Idaho’s Senate earlier in February to the applause of agricultural representatives who said it would help ensure farmers’ right to privacy. There is a certain irony in the US that everyone can get privacy, except private citizen.

As reprehensible as the abuse was, this not a First Amendment issue: farms are private property. It's the same way you can throw someone out of your house for saying things you don't like and they can't claim their First Amendment rights are being violated.

You really shouldn't comment on an issue you know nothing about. The Ag-Gag laws have nothing to do with private property or private rights of action, they are felony criminal laws criminalizing certain kinds of speech, and there's currently at least one Constitutional challenge filed by a plaintiff who was arrested and charged with filming a farm from public property.

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#64

Post by jakobe »

bobjordan wrote: post #45
ama729 wrote: post #6

Of all things, you would think that the first amendment would protect such a thing, can any lawyer weight on that? > The measure passed Idaho’s Senate earlier in February to the applause of agricultural representatives who said it would help ensure farmers’ right to privacy. There is a certain irony in the US that everyone can get privacy, except private citizen.

I consider myself a far left liberal and I certainly don't condone abusing farm animals. However, taking a paying job under falsified pretenses with a made up resume and then spending your working hours secretly filming internal operations for future public release with the sole goal of harming your employer, that is just sketchy. If you believe in the cause so much that you call it war - well understood. But protect…

The goal isn't to "harm the employer", the goal is to expose their behavior. If exposing your "internal operations" harms you, the problem isn't person doing the exposing, the problem are the "internal operations".

I find it fascinating how everytime someone makes scandalous practices public, people come on the scene to condemn the people who go to the public.

If there is no legal way to publicise abhorrent practices, we must break the law. Especially if "breaking the law" is something as harmless as lying on a resume.

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#66

Post by ollysb »

bobjordan wrote: post #45
ama729 wrote: post #6

Of all things, you would think that the first amendment would protect such a thing, can any lawyer weight on that? > The measure passed Idaho’s Senate earlier in February to the applause of agricultural representatives who said it would help ensure farmers’ right to privacy. There is a certain irony in the US that everyone can get privacy, except private citizen.

I consider myself a far left liberal and I certainly don't condone abusing farm animals. However, taking a paying job under falsified pretenses with a made up resume and then spending your working hours secretly filming internal operations for future public release with the sole goal of harming your employer, that is just sketchy. If you believe in the cause so much that you call it war - well understood. But protect…

How does this play with the current whistleblower laws? Presumably longstanding employees would be protected. Where do you draw the line?

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#67

Post by randomdata »

rimantas wrote: post #55
randomdata wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying a cow in heat does not imply consent? If so, what standard should we hold bulls to when they "immorally" act on that signal? Or are you suggesting that rape is okay, so long as it does not involve humans?

I've read that surprisingly many rape victims experience orgasm during rape (which makes it even worse for them afterwards). Would you claim that this also implies consent? Also, looks like you have quite a naive picture of how insemination actually works. Usually there is no bull involved only a vet with a shoulder-lenght rubber glove. Now, does the process of getting bull's semen also count as sexual abuse… I actua…

> Would you claim that this also implies consent?

I'm not seeing the mental leap here. A cow making it obvious that she is ready to mate is equivalent to a woman making it obvious she does not want to mate? Consent implies agreement before the act; an orgasm during the act would not apply.

I'm not even sure if a cow indicating desire to mate implies consent, but that is why I asked the parent's opinion. I'd tend to agree with you that consent and animals do not even mix, but the parent clearly disagrees: Rape isn't even a concept without being able to apply the idea of consent.

> Also, looks like you have quite a naive picture of how insemination actually works.

What gives you that impression? I've spent the majority of my life around dairy cattle and am very familiar with the processes (which may or may not include the use of a bull). I was trying to simplify the argument so that we could have a meaningful conversation without having to nitpick over irrelevant details.

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#68

Post by hoggle »

coldcode wrote: post #39

I think the issue isn't family farms, most small farmers take their job seriously. The issue is big conglomerate farms that don't want their industrial processes to be aired and criticized, much less have people discover practices that produce tainted and diseased products that might kill people. It's easier to control the fallout when things go bad when there are no pictures, such as in lawsuits.

I hope Sergey Brin's artificial meat project will take off soon, there is this constantly increasing demand for cheap meat which has been one of the main reasons behind the increase of factory farms over the years:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2013/aug/05/google-...

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#69

Post by resu_nimda »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #51
bobjordan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider myself a far left liberal and I certainly don't condone abusing farm animals. However, taking a paying job under falsified pretenses with a made up resume and then spending your working hours secretly filming internal operations for future public release with the sole goal of harming your employer, that is just sketchy. If you believe in the cause so much that you call it war - well understood. But protect…

It's beyond sketchy. As the "producer" of such a video, you can edit and cut it any way you want. You're effectively using the trust given to you from somebody to make a political propaganda video damaging their interests. EDIT: I've massively changed my comment because, after thinking this through a bit, the real problem here is that this is a political stunt masquerading as some kind of news story. Husband beats wi…

So how would you propose someone expose (what they consider to be) criminal or unjust practices? It's only ok if an impartial observer just happened to find themselves in the middle of a commercial farming operation with a video camera?

I get that it sucks for someone to be acting in bad faith toward their employer, but isn't that justified and even necessary when the employer is acting in bad faith toward the populace? Obviously this is what Snowden did - he knew what he was doing, he didn't just stumble upon a pile of documents. But maybe you would describe what he did as sketchy, criminal, and wrong? Many have, of course.

Edit: Well you heavily edited your comment while I wrote mine. But, I don't think the wife-beating analogy is valid, it brings in ulterior motives. In this situation there is no mayoral campaign to derail, they actually just wanted to expose the crimes because those are what they took issue with. Still don't understand your desire to demonize the whistleblower.

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#70

Post by SixSigma »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #52
ama729 wrote: post #6

Of all things, you would think that the first amendment would protect such a thing, can any lawyer weight on that? > The measure passed Idaho’s Senate earlier in February to the applause of agricultural representatives who said it would help ensure farmers’ right to privacy. There is a certain irony in the US that everyone can get privacy, except private citizen.

As reprehensible as the abuse was, this not a First Amendment issue: farms are private property. It's the same way you can throw someone out of your house for saying things you don't like and they can't claim their First Amendment rights are being violated.

My first amendment rights would be violated if I was arrested and jailed for a year for saying something in your house you didn't like.
Post reply on HN