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

51–60 of 138 posts

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#51

Post by DanielBMarkham »

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…

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 wife, it's a crime. He should be punished. Neighbor sneaks into house, taping husband beating wife, then publishes it online as part of taking apart husband's run at mayor, it's still a crime, but it's also a political stunt. The two are not mutually exclusive.

So my response here is complex: bad workers get trained, dairy industry gets punished, activists get supported for First Amendment rights to publish -- then punished for invading private property and fraud. It's definitely a mixed bag, and not the good-guy-versus-bad-guy story AJ seems to want to make it out to be.

And yes, there's no doubt the state legislature is protecting the dairy industry, but if this surprises you, you haven't taken a close look at the regulatory state we've been happily creating over the past 50 years. Most politicians would argue, either on or off the record, that this is exactly the kind of thing they get elected to do. This is their job.

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#52

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

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.

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#53

Post by indrax »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #21
danvideo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that doesn't make sense. If it is considered wrong/unethical to film on private property in Idaho - why would they legislate for a specific industry? Shouldn't filming video on private property be illegal all across the board in Idaho if the problem is about basic rights?

Its clearly a knee-jerk reaction to unfortunate events. But consider: Farms cannot be reasonably secured. Can't prove 'breaking and entering' when all you have to do is park and walk, maybe cross a fence. So they would need some special rules to make them private space at all.

Of course you can't prove breaking and entering if that is not what was done. "Can't be secured" means only that they want a large space free from scrutiny without paying to properly secure it.

This is like legislating to make URL modification illegal 'hacking' and justifying it by saying programmers are too expensive.

If our society wants people to have stronger protection for large unsecured areas, they it should apply to all such areas.

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#54

Post by randomdata »

keeshawn wrote: post #31
cdoxsey wrote: post #2

Makes sense. A farm is private property. You don't have the right to come into my house or my place of work and film me. (Even if you suspect I'm doing something wrong) Also makes sense that falsifying a resume in order to do so would be illegal.

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.

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#55

Post by rimantas »

randomdata wrote: post #40
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 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 actually think that the notion of "consent" is stupid when tried to apply to animals. We will just twist it however we think acceptable. Cows don't consent being milked or killed for meat any more than they consent for sex with them. I'd happily accept a simple stance "yep, we do use and kill you, we just try our best not to make you suffer more than needed" over militant stupidity of "animal rights" activists.

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#56

Post by Jach »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #49
Jach wrote: post #37

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? I watched it, my own take is that it's nothing special in terms of disturbing material. The other video from PETA linked on this page shows more perverse acts but is also not very disturbing overall. The video on meat.org is…

> 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?

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#57

Post by balls187 »

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…

From what you've written, it sounds like it's not okay go undercover to expose abuse.

I disagree.

It's in the public's interest to expose this abuse, because the activity is inhumane, immoral, and likely illegal.

It's not uncommon for journalists to go undercover to uncover the truth.

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#58

Post by pyre »

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.

Can you currently convict someone of a felony for lying on their resume?

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#59

Post by pkinsky »

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…

I draw the line at illegality. Activists filming distasteful but legal processes are sketchy. Activists filming animal abuse in cases where the government turns a blind eye should be encouraged. Ideally the government would perform this function, but I don't see that happening.

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#60

Post by Zigurd »

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.

A lot of people don't understand that "factory farms" get franchised out to "small farmers." Big chicken producers hire farmers to raise their chickens. The smaller farmers take on much of the financial risk, employment issues, etc. So when someone takes video of bad practices on a farm, the responsibility might be on the hired farmer, or it might be on the big agra company that hired him but didn't pay enough for humane treatment and sanitary conditions.

The main issue is that often a farm isn't merely some small farmers property. It's the place where big agra policies are being enacted.

Few people would be outraged if someone smuggled a camera into a big factory to document abuses. Be skeptical of privacy arguments here. This is the equivalent of a big manufacturer contracting out to small sweatshops.

Post reply on HN