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

111–120 of 138 posts

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#111

Post by Synaesthesia »

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.

I would suggest that the issue is that animals are not property. They can't just do what they want with them and get away with it.

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#112

Post by asciimo »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #33
yuvadam wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I find it hard to see the difference between "abnormal" sexual abuse and "regular" sexual abuse that is an inherent part of the dairy industry, whether you like it or not.

Are you able to tell the difference between medicine and abuse when it comes to something like endoscopy? Hint: one of them is based around inflicting pain, and the other tries to inflict none. Edit: Also when you call it 'rape' and 'sexual' I wonder how you would feel about impregnation that completely bypassed genitalia and went though an incision in the abdomen. Assume getting a c-section too if you like.

Endoscopy, fertility treatments, and pregnancy assistance are consensual. Forced insemination is not.

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#113

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

SixSigma wrote: post #106
HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they would. What's your point?

You claimed it was the same. It isn't because there's a year's jail and a $5k fine involved, thus making it a constitutional matter, not a private one.

I think you should work on your reading comprehension.

I said someone throwing you out of their house because of something you said was not a First Amendment issue, and it's not. I don't recall saying, or implying that a homeowner has the ability to jail someone or impose fines. If you are aware of that being the case, I'd certainly be interested in citations.

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#114

Post by DanBC »

brownbat wrote: post #85
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.

This is similar to the tort of public disclosure of private facts. (Libel protects me against you lying about me, but this tort protects against you publicizing my strange hobbies or sexual practices or other private practices so long as, and this is huge, there's no public interest). I know Idaho was a late adopter to the tort, while many other states committed the tort to statute. They may just be coming around. Th…

Farmers might be doing things other than abusing their animals.

Living in a country that went through bovine spongiform encephalopathy and a variety of other animal diseases I think it's a frightening idea to prevent secret filming.

People who want to film secretly will try to do so using legal means as far as possible. They'll get ployed as a worker on the farm, for example. But if secret filming is itself banned those people will turn to entirely criminal methods - breaking and entering. This means that secret filming moves from moderate groups to hardline activist groups.

That is sub-optimal.

And why are farmers scared of their animal conditions being shown? People should be aware of how their food is produced. See "kill it, cook it, eat it" as an example tv series.

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#115

Post by pasbesoin »

At a minimum, I hope that this means that when violations are exposed, the violating entity is in turn treated as a single, opaque unit it has sought to be: Criminal prosecution for all its members and investors, and fine and jail time for all.

Live by the sword, die by the sword...

This sounds extreme, but I've about had it with such people who want to "have their cake and eat it, too". If you are an ethical, well-run business, your own employees communication as well as your interface with the public keep you honest and efficient.

If you play a part in insisting that all this be "swept under the rug", then you should de facto play a part in paying the consequences. Whether or not you were individually, directly involved.

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#116

Post by SixSigma »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #113
SixSigma wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You claimed it was the same. It isn't because there's a year's jail and a $5k fine involved, thus making it a constitutional matter, not a private one.

I think you should work on your reading comprehension. I said someone throwing you out of their house because of something you said was not a First Amendment issue, and it's not. I don't recall saying, or implying that a homeowner has the ability to jail someone or impose fines. If you are aware of that being the case, I'd certainly be interested in citations.

Your sloppy writing doesn't help.

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#117

Post by deedubaya »

I grew up on a beef farm in Idaho, a family business. I have some opinions about this.

1) I don't believe animal cruelty is okay. 2) If someone is abusing an animal, they should be prosecuted by the law 3) I find that many people have no idea the conditions or actions that are required to raise large animals. Some practices may seem cruel to the unknowing bystander, but are, in fact, practices to help maintain the health of the animals, the safety of the workers who manage them, and provide a product that we, the consumer, will enjoy.

As for this bill, I believe that it shows a serious flaw in the way we raise and produce food in the United States. The demand for low prices have resulted in an attempted mass production of animals.

This bill does make it appear that these farmers are guilty of something wrong, and they're trying to hide it. That may or may not be the case. I do know that if they are doing something wrong, there are legal avenues in place to investigate and prosecute the wrong doers.

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#118

Post by jessaustin »

yuvadam wrote: post #17
koobarbara wrote: post #5

"sexually abused", can anyone explain this bit?

Well, it's pretty straightforward. You do know where the milk you drink comes from, right? You do know that cows are forcefully inseminated and impregnated (i.e. raped) in order to keep up the production, right? [I'm not sure why the downvotes are in place just because I'm mentioning a well known fact about how the dairy industry works]

Some people have ethics nuanced enough to differentiate between e.g. a violent sexual assault against a human being and the artificial insemination, with standard veterinary tools, of a "food" animal. Other people do not have such ethics. It's not hard to understand why the two groups might have a disagreement, but it is kind of obnoxious to see that disagreement on HN.

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#119

Post by toddh »

resu_nimda wrote: post #69
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 popula…

Exactly. Whistleblowing is a meta statement about a law. A law by definition can't address whisteblowing no more than a law can bring the idea of a governement of laws to life. They both flow from the same place, the human conscience.

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#120

Post by jessaustin »

asciimo wrote: post #112
Dylan16807 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you able to tell the difference between medicine and abuse when it comes to something like endoscopy? Hint: one of them is based around inflicting pain, and the other tries to inflict none. Edit: Also when you call it 'rape' and 'sexual' I wonder how you would feel about impregnation that completely bypassed genitalia and went though an incision in the abdomen. Assume getting a c-section too if you like.

Endoscopy, fertility treatments, and pregnancy assistance are consensual. Forced insemination is not.

Maybe you haven't been around cattle very much, but it's actually quite rare for them to receive any veterinary care in a "consensual" fashion. They are different from you and I in a number of salient ways.

Do you have a problem with human infants receiving painful vaccinations for which they likewise cannot possibly consent?

Post reply on HN