
Taping of Farm Cruelty Is Becoming the Crime - praptak
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/us/taping-of-farm-cruelty-is-becoming-the-crime.html
======
edw519
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

~~~
SeanDav
As an outsider, it appears to me that almost the entire US legal and political
system is driven by, and for the benefit of, corporate and big business
interests. The only other major factor at work seems to be fear - witness the
ever increasing power of the TSA

Probably appears worse than it is, but it does appear to be in a pretty sad
state now.

The Founding Fathers are probably turning in their graves.

~~~
maratd
> As an outsider, it appears to me that the almost the entire US legal and
> political system is driven by, and for the benefit of, corporate and big
> business interests.

This is the case in every country. Those at the top will take an inordinate
amount of time to make rules that benefit themselves and their friends.

The primary difference between the US and other countries is that the US
constitution provides a means for the citizens to fight back against the most
outrageous of offenses. Now, that doesn't mean it always works. In fact, it
rarely does. But it does, in fact, work occasionally, which is better than
nothing.

~~~
neilk
Oh, absolutely. As a Canadian, I live in hope that the US will invade and
replace our system of government.

~~~
brightsize
No doubt you're joking, but one thing I've repeatedly noticed in my many
visits to Canada is the extent to which Canadians define themselves as being
"not American" (meaning not US citizens). Can't blame 'em, more power to them.

~~~
neilk
This is a fair point. I actually can't stand that too.

------
kyrra
This is not meant to defend cruel people, I just want to raise a few points
about farms.

While I have only been to small farms, I have definitely seen what some people
would consider animal cruelty. But I think it's important to understand the
mentality of people that work with these animals.

Animals on farms are seen as property, not a pet in any way. Most owners and
workers of animals distance themselves from the animals to keep themselves
mentally healthy as they will be putting these animals to slaughter to sell or
eat. When distance yourself from an animal, you won't be treating it as nicely
as you would your family dog.

When talking about farm help, they may hold a grudge against the animals they
are working with. A friend would work his uncle's farm every saturday to help
clean up after the pigs. His job was basically shoveling pig poop for 8 hours
(or other equally not-fun jobs). It would take a day before he smelled normal
again. Doing this kind of work can make some people resentful of the animals
they work with.

Farmers and farm help see animals as money, so they won't do anything that
could jeopardize being paid (won't damage the product).

When people are disconnected with the animals they are working with, it is
easier for some people not to be so nice to those animals. This isn't to say
that all people working with animals will be abusive towards them, but it
creates an opening for those people that aren't as nice to take their anger
out on the animals.

~~~
lprubin
As of a couple of years ago, the average job tenure of an employee working in
a slaughterhouse was 6 months. Many people lasted half a day to three days.
The emotional stress and trauma of witnessing living animals being put through
the kind of things factory farming does to them is emotionally overwhelming to
even the most hardened people.

The people who have to witness that day in and day out frequently end up with
extreme emotional turmoil/psychological trauma similar to PTSD and it is these
traumatized employees who end enacting much of the crueler practices talked
about in these videos.

It's very challenging for a person to witness what goes on in a slaughterhouse
and to maintain their sanity. Trying to keep the idea that these are living
creatures with rights but also that it is perfectly fine for them to suffer
the horrible treatment they are subjected to requires a tenuous mental
gymnastics that apparently seems to break down after only a couple of months
of exposure.

~~~
pyre

      | factory farming
    

Slaughterhouses aren't just for 'factory farming.' It's mandated by law that
only licensed/register abattoir can kill animals used for meat, so even the
animals coming from 'humane' farms go through the same process.

Also, I remember reading some statistics about how domestic violence is higher
among slaughterhouse workers. Too lazy to look it up, but IIRC it was _after_
they started working there (not necessarily that violent people were attracted
to the trade).

~~~
ethomson
This depends on the animal. My recollection was that one must process cattle
through a USDA approved facility, but there were no such restrictions on pork
or poultry.

(The lack of a poultry restriction is obvious to anyone who's bought an
organic bird from a local farm.)

Further, as the local eating movement grows, there's an increase in the number
of "boutique" (if you will) slaughterhouses.
[http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/06/04/153511889/small-...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/06/04/153511889/small-
scale-slaughterhouses-aim-to-put-the-local-back-in-local-meat)

------
TomGullen
"One of the group’s model bills, “The Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act,”
prohibits filming or taking pictures on livestock farms to “defame the
facility or its owner.” Violators would be placed on a “terrorist registry.”"

This sounds like a line out of some futuristic dystopian film

~~~
egeozcan
To me, it sounds as if it's taken from George Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty-
Four."

~~~
mhaymo
Animal Farm also comes to mind, but that's awfully literal.

------
yuvadam
This is nothing but plutocracy fighting its final battle.

No one is _actually_ suggesting that animal cruelty is OK. But when
documenting such (immoral, mind you) acts raises awareness that eventually
harms business, in the meat and dairy industry in this case, then big money
raises its head in the form of legislation that favors the $$$.

We see the same pattern when hackers are cast as the new terrorists.

~~~
randomdata
I wonder how the tech community would respond if undercover reporters were
breaking into offices and documenting the "incomprehensible" C that managers
are forcing down on employees when they could be purportedly writing software
in English, and people stopped using software to help free the abused
employees who are stuffed in a small cubicle to write nonsensical gibberish
day-in, day-out?

That is what this situation seems like. Animal cruelty is definitely not okay,
but I have noticed a growing trend of reporting best practices, _that attempt
to minimize animal suffering as much as possible_ , as animal cruelty. And the
solutions people are coming up with to improve on those best practices are as
non-sensical as a non-industry expert suggesting that we write software in
English. In a perfect world, sure, but the real world has real constraints.

I would like to see real awareness, not people who feel they are experts on
all rural affair matters after watching a two hour documentary and a YouTube
clip or two. A video ban is definitely not the way to do that, but I can see
the other side. Google isn't going to be too happy if you go around filming
their datacenter, lamenting that you could do the same with a server in your
closet at home, either.

~~~
carbocation
Not that this is really relevant to the topic at hand, but are you actually
drawing an equivalency between people who get paid to write code for a living
and an animal being slaughtered? I don't think the analogy works at all.

~~~
randomdata
No. I'm saying people who do not understand technology could be lead to
believe such things if people started reporting it. Nobody is going to take
the time to realize that people actually enjoy writing software using
programming languages.

And I'm not suggesting animals enjoy being slaughtered, but if it is going to
happen, do you not support doing it the most humane way possible?

~~~
glesica
I support free information. If "best practices" in animal slaughter gross
people out, then maybe we need better "best practices" or maybe we need to
rethink our agriculture system. Just because something has been decided upon
by a group of experts does not make it socially just or appropriate. The
treatment of slaves was, I'm sure, generally done according to what, at that
time, would have been considered "best practices", and people wanted cotton.
But that doesn't mean that slavery should have been ignored and "left to the
professionals".

~~~
kefka
Unless you switch everyone to a meat substitute, killing will be required for
eating meat.

I've eaten: cow, chicken, pig, turkey, duck, frog, octopus, salmon, tuna, and
I'm sure other meats too. All of them required to be killed, for processing.

Don't get me wrong. I eat meat. I've also done slaughtering as well and know
what goes on when you do kill. I also strongly prefer eating humanely treated
animals, before and during slaughter.

~~~
glesica
Fine, that's perfectly fine with me. But nothing you said suggests that
recording slaughter practices should be some sort of special "first amendment
black hole". If it grosses people out, then maybe we'll just end up with more
vegetarians, oh well.

~~~
randomdata
I'm not sure it is quite that simple. The article seems to indicate that it
isn't about hiding information per-say, but to keep the people, who come with
the specific intent of destroying the farm, away. You will notice it is not
just about videos.

I think most farmers respect, and even often agree with, with normal animal
rights activists, but they also have a real fear towards the "crazy PETA
types", and with good reason. I think you'd find any industry trying to push
for similar laws in the presence of similar activists, and we do have laws for
similar cases that have come up.

Its unfortunate that those who have a real concern for the well-being of
animals, and actually want to work with farmers to see improvements, get
wrapped up in the spectacle that others bring.

~~~
kefka
And the harsh fact: for you to live, something else must die.

We only focus on factory farm operations and the possible illegality of
filming illegal actions. Yes, there are horrible practices in many parts of
industry (I would say more horrible than not).

I just got done watching a documentary about plant communication on Nature
(PBS). They also seem to be able to identify self, relative, and non-self.
They communicate across species about predator information. They initiate
active chemical defenses against organisms that attack them. They also respond
to negative stimuli (pain). All things considered, they seem to be able to
think and feel similarly to the animals.

Now.. I say this why? Most people would have no compunction about killing a
plant for food, yet many I know would strongly object in killing a cow or
chicken to eat meat.

My point is this: plants and animals seem to feel pain and seek to minimize
it. Plants and animals are both living. I would not say that any specific
plant is any more or less important than an animal (including us). However,
for us to live, something must, inevitably die.

I make a thanks to the beings, plant and animal, I consume before each meal.

------
lprubin
If you eat factory farmed meat, eggs, or dairy, you are almost guaranteed to
be supporting animal cruelty. There are many fantastic books and documentaries
detailing the horrors and dangers of factory farming and I've linked to a few
below. This is an open secret.

I would be willing to bet that almost anybody here, once they've looked deeply
into factory farming, would come out the other side and look at factory farmed
animal products in a completely new light.

Do you truly want to stop farm animal cruelty? Investigate this industry and
consider no longer buying factory farmed animal products.

[http://www.amazon.com/Food-Inc-Participant-Industrial-
Poorer...](http://www.amazon.com/Food-Inc-Participant-Industrial-
Poorer-/dp/1586486942/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365429391&sr=1-1&keywords=food+inc)

[http://www.amazon.com/Eating-Animals-Jonathan-Safran-
Foer/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Eating-Animals-Jonathan-Safran-
Foer/dp/0316069884)

~~~
eltondegeneres
There is no such thing as humane meat, eggs, or dairy, even in the absence of
factory farming. Dairy requires that cows be forcibly inseminated, male chicks
are ground alive in hatcheries, and it is impossible to produce meat without
killing an animal. "Humane" meat is just a way for the wealthy to absolve
themselves of complicity in killing for taste and convenience by paying a
premium for something that is anything but humane.

~~~
ndespres
You're wrong about this.

-dairy animals can be chosen based on their long-term milk production (my goats haven't been bred in 2+ years and are still giving more milk than I know what to do with, and when they are finally bred we have other uses for males around the farm).

-I hatch my own chicks and the males are not ground alive (or tossed in trash, or euthanized, or whatever). My chickens get as much love as my dogs do.

-Of course it's impossible to produce meat without killing an animal, but it is very much possible to produce meat while caring about the animal immensely and ensuring its quality of life is never compromised (save for the last instant). It is the hardest thing in the world- and it should be. Raising my own animals for meat has changed the way I consume other meat (or rather, the way i DON'T consume other meat) unless I'm sure it has been handled, beginning to end, with the same care and concern that I give my animals.

Humane meat is possible without being elitist, expensive, and inhumane, and I
take personally your accusation that there's any convenience in it. Attitudes
like yours are just one more factor that a small farmer has to deal with in
this uphill battle against backwards attitudes towards meat raising and I'd
appreciate it if you'd cool it on the propaganda!

~~~
redblacktree
Thank you for this. Moral absolutism with respect to killing animals for meat
doesn't advance the conversation; it just gives vegans a way to feel superior.
You seem to understand that what matters (to many people) is the quality of
life for the _living_ animal.

A note to all hard-line vegans: If you want to do something to improve the
welfare of the animals we raise for meat, engage people in discussions of
humane farming practices w.r.t. livestock. Most meat-eaters you talk to aren't
ready to give it up. So ask yourself: Would you rather live in a world of
factory farms, or a world where animals are raised and slaughtered in the
_most_ humane way we can manage? Give up on the idea that you'll convert
everyone you meet to a vegan, and you can still do a lot of good in this
world. When you take hard-line stances like the poster above, you alienate
your meat-eating audience and end the conversation.

~~~
eltondegeneres
Ending chattel slavery probably didn't seem that feasible to abolitionists in
1820s United States. That doesn't mean they would have gained anything by
compromising though. Advocating for welfare reforms rather than abolition
sends mixed messages and suggests that there is a tolerable level of (to put
it bluntly) exploitation.

~~~
redblacktree
I guess we'll be forced to stick with the status quo, then. Politics requires
compromise. Not everyone's moral yardstick is the same as yours. I don't think
you would find a great many people who would think that the slave analogy is
appropriate, so the only option I have left is to exclude you from the
conversation. You're in a very small minority when you equate the rights of
animals to the rights of a human.

------
simonster
As an animal researcher, I'm of two minds on this.

Obviously, it's better if animal cruelty is exposed. The practices mentioned
in the introduction definitely constitute cruelty. They should not be allowed
to happen, and whistleblowers should be permitted to record them so that
evidence may be presented in court.

On the other hand, people with ties to animal rights organizations have a
habit of finding animal cruelty where there is none. See
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Spring_monkeys> for a classic example.
The pictures produced by PETA portrayed a researcher's work as an open-and-
shut case of animal cruelty when, in fact, the research was scientifically
justified and it was ambiguous whether there was any negligence in the way the
animals were cared for.

~~~
eltondegeneres
There was no doubt whether the animals subjected to unreasonable suffering. As
for the question of scientific justification, there were non-animal models for
neuroplasticity research available at the time. The widespread use of monkeys
in neuroscience is more of a matter of convenience and entrenched interests.
Just because a study produces scientific results does not mean that it is
ethically valid, take the Tuskegee syphilis experiments or San Antonio
Contraceptive Study for example.

~~~
simonster
This debate has been covered to death in other sources. The majority of
scientists disagree with you. It might be because there is a vast conspiracy;
it might because most peoples' values differ from yours; or it might be
because we know neuroscience better than you do

EDIT: Just to make clear, I don't want this to be taken as a wholehearted
endorsement of the treatment of the animals in the Silver Springs case. There
were some questionable practices. However, I feel that there was a scientific
reason to be performing the general class of experiments.

~~~
jkn
Scientists who don't feel strongly about animal rights defend the position
that is most convenient and efficient for them. If using a monkey instead of
spending months cultivating petri dishes is easier (e.g. more
deterministically successful for publication) then of course they will
advocate for using the monkey. This argument leaves the animal rights activist
unimpressed. In the end most animal experiments are certainly useful but few
are strictly necessary. Researchers complain about all the paperwork required
but I wish it was 100 times more difficult to get these experiments approved.
Then people would really make sure the experiment is well thought-out and
important. And I would happily delay some scientific discoveries by 50 years
if that can spare a few million animals (thanks to better computer models or
new noninvasive techniques)

~~~
ctdonath
And if the delay costs human lives? perhaps lots of them?

You make it sound like there is no consequence of the delay except time. Alas,
time is among the most precious things each of us has, and I personally don't
have another 50 to spare.

~~~
jkn
How is that the animals' problem? But note that I was referring to _some_
discoveries. I just don't believe we're close to making an efficient "use" of
the millions of animals subject to experiments every year.

------
mdkess
Why not require video cameras be installed in factory farms, and have footage
independently reviewed? I feel like a lot of this abuse is due to poorly
educated workers in a stressful environment and no observation.

~~~
spacemanaki
I just pasted this quote elsewhere in this thread but I'm going to paste it
here again because it's so bold-faced.

    
    
      The videos may seem troubling to someone unfamiliar with farming, said
      Kelli Ludlum, the group’s director of Congressional relations, but
      they can be like seeing open-heart surgery for the first time.
      
      “They could be performing a perfect procedure, but you would consider
      it abhorrent that they were cutting a person open,” she said.
    

Some of the behavior filmed is standard operating procedures, and they don't
want that viewed by the otherwise ignorant public.

~~~
carbocation
And yet, in contrast, we have surgeons posting their videos for all to see on
YouTube because they are proud of the work that they do and they want people
to see what goes on in the OR.

~~~
mseebach
It helps that "victims" of successful surgeries end up playing catch with
their kids, and not in a clearance bin in a supermarket.

------
hmottestad
I love these short pieces on stupid legislation in the land of the free.

Makes me so happy I don't live there.

Who in their right mind would even propose such legislation. What kind of
immoral, capitalistic people are in charge in the US.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Newsflash: it's extraordinarily unlikely that you live in a country with
stronger protection of freedom of speech than the US. In fact, if you live in
Europe you almost certainly don't.

~~~
Uchikoma
If you live in a free county, say fuck on TV. If not don't lecture others
about free speech.

~~~
nkozyra
We have plenty of channels using the word "fuck" on tv at any given moment. In
fact, it's highly likely that you regularly watch a few of those shows.

~~~
Uchikoma
Actually no. I prefer shows from the UK.

~~~
nkozyra
You don't watch a single US-produced television program. I believe this.

~~~
mistercow
Your sarcasm indicates that you think this is somehow a preposterous concept.
Despite being American, I have not watched a single American TV show in more
than a month, and that instance was a single episode at a party gathered to
share food and watch it (I was there for the people, not the show).

Granted, I watch very little TV, but what I do watch is from the UK.

------
johndavidback
As a US citizen, this scares the crap out of me. If the government is actively
and publicly preventing people from exposing rampant crime, it speaks volumes.
At least if they were trying to be covert or slick about it, it implies they
know what they are doing is wrong.

~~~
ianstallings
They just rammed a bill through congress to make Monsato above the law. They
have drones scouring the globe for vans filled with people they can drop bombs
on if they think they may associate with "bad" people. If you talk about it
you're a conspiracy theorist. Which means you go onto a list. Gotta watch what
you're doing now. They try to disarm the public in the name of safety while
arming themselves to the teeth and solving every problem they have with the
threat of violence.

Think this is crazy talk? Well that's my point. It's become crazy to even
mention some things. Frankly, the stuff is getting outright creepy and they
better be careful because they are playing with fire.

~~~
thisone
I find this bit to be on the 'oh-please' side of crazy:

>They try to disarm the public in the name of safety while arming themselves
to the teeth and solving every problem they have with the threat of violence.

because I have a friend who used this basic argument to say gun control
increases the likelihood of a nuclear strike on DC by North Korea.

~~~
ianstallings
Well is it not the truth? The US has the world's most heavily armed police
forces. Their military makes others look quaint. They have military actions
going on today right now all over the world. They always need more $ to
continue the violence. Yet they claim that violence is wrong. It's really no
wonder we're like a bunch of crazy people.

The simple fact is uncle sam solves every problem with violence so I'm not
surprised when it's citizens act the same way.

~~~
thisone
In the overall argument, I find a distinction between citizen and government.
I disagree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the second amendment, so
that gives a basis of where I come from when equating ownership of firearms
for personal protection to a standing military.

However, I can't stop my eye's from rolling at someone telling me that if
everyone had guns, there would be no nuclear threat from any
person/group/country. I honestly don't understand how one can connect to the
other.

------
DanielBMarkham
I am totally for people being able to expose farm cruelty if the goal is an
open debate to enact political change. I wonder, however, if sometimes people
use their free speech rights to terrorize potential supporters and advocates,
folks who are unfamiliar with reality and context, in order to raise money
through FUD. That doesn't mean I don't support their right to free speech.
Just means that the speaking part and the recording part need to be considered
separately.

I added that caveat because what we're going to see is all sorts of people
with all kinds of interests taping things, especially with drone technology
and ubiquitous surveillance. This isn't somebody writing a play, novel, or an
editorial. It's somebody taking something that you thought was private and
displaying it for the world to see, inside their own editorial frame. It's
something we should think about carefully. While I am completely in support of
MLK's right to make the speech "I have a dream", I'm not so sure I'd be in
favor of somebody secretly taping him with a drone while he was creating it.
And then creating their own political content around that tape.

Case in point: here's an article I was going to research and rewrite last week
but didn't have time. In Australia, animal activists are planning on using
drones to tape farmers looking for cruelty.

[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/02/animal_liberation_au...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/02/animal_liberation_australia_drones/)

Would you want anybody with a political cause access to your property whenever
they wanted to make recordings to support their political point?

------
ianstallings
There's a creepy trend going on in the world and it's always been around, but
it's gaining steam - the restriction of information. Make it illegal to talk
about or simply ignore it becomes the standard. "These aren't the droids
you're looking for" as they speak to the world.

~~~
coldpie
I disagree. I think we are trending in the opposite direction, and these kinds
of bills are the "bad guys" fighting back against that progress. The Internet
and computing generally have really opened the flood gates on freedom of
information. We have to fight to keep making progress, but I honestly believe
we're trending forward on this.

It's easy to draw an analogy to another fight dear to me, gay rights in the
United States. 40 years ago, there were no anti-gay constitutional amendments.
Today we're seeing many states pass anti-gay constitutional amendments. Is
that because we're going backwards on gay rights, or because the "bad guys"
are fighting progress? I think it's clearly the latter.

Don't get discouraged by losing a battle when you're winning the war :) Keep
up the fight.

------
TomGullen
Can't the people filming the cruelty just re-brand themselves as undercover
journalists and get all the protection journalists receive?

~~~
gambiting
You can't just "brand" yourself a journalist. You need a licence and
accreditation.

~~~
TomGullen
I wasn't aware that was the case, can't anyone be a self proclaimed
investigative journalist?

~~~
jarito
It is not, he's wrong. Whether someone is, or is not, a journalist has been
decided by courts in the past as part of the application of the various
journalist shield laws.

Working for a well-known publication and having a journalism degree certainly
helps your case, but it is not required.

~~~
gambiting
You can only get to certain places with a press pass, like war zones and such,
and it grants you diplomatic immunity and journalist protection from many
things that could happen to you :P

You can't just run in yelling "I am a journalist!" and expecting everyone to
accept it. Either you are accredited or you are not.

------
snarfy
I doubt all the people signing on to this even know it's happening.

American Legislative Exchange Council: <http://www.alec.org/about-alec/>

It might help to contact your representative and let them know about this
article and that you associate them to it, and to protecting animal cruelty.

------
patrickk
I wonder what would have happened if this kind of legislation was in place for
the guy who filmed the Mitt Romney "47%" video.

~~~
Anechoic
That recording _was_ illegal: <http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/florida-
recording-law>

------
gerhardi
Why did the original posting get deleted? On to the topic, this is just
ridiculous, how can anyone vote for such a law?

~~~
kristofferR
Yeah, I found the deletion really weird too! Good that it's back though.

------
btipling
Here's a crazy idea, stop eating meat. It's energy inefficient and cruel.

~~~
Ygg2
Here's a better idea. Engineer meat from animal stem cells. More energy
efficient and less cruel (although maybe less tasty). Plants take less energy
but provide less energy to humans (meat is more power efficient). Think of
plant and animal like 1.5V batteries vs. 3V batteries.

~~~
btipling
Nope. It would require less farming to feed people than to feed animals and
people to eat those animals. Energy loss is an order of magnitude. If you ate
the plants instead of eating the animals eating the plants it would be more
energy efficient.

~~~
Ygg2
Would it take less energy to grow meat (in lab) or grow plant?

~~~
btipling
I don't know anything about growing meat in the lab, but it doesn't sound very
appealing and I've lost any desire to eat meat long ago so I don't really care
either way. The theoretical potential to grow meat isn't in any way a
convincing argument to make eating meat right this minute either non-cruel or
energy efficient however.

------
Egregore
From original article: _but they can be like seeing open-heart surgery for the
first time._

 _“They could be performing a perfect procedure, but you would consider it
abhorrent that they were cutting a person open,” she said._

So should we now ban the taping of heart surgery?

------
pm90
Putting the issue of legality of such legislation aside, it kinda surprised me
that the farm-owners/workers were not more concerned about the kind of cruelty
going on in their property. Do these people not find the videos incredibly
unsettling? How can they allow these things under their watch?

~~~
spacemanaki
At least one of the practices mentioned, de-beaking [0], is nowhere near out
of the ordinary at factory hatcheries. One of the quoted lobbyists even makes
the point that some of the behavior recorded is the norm, not the exception:

    
    
      The videos may seem troubling to someone unfamiliar with farming, said
      Kelli Ludlum, the group’s director of Congressional relations, but
      they can be like seeing open-heart surgery for the first time.
      
      “They could be performing a perfect procedure, but you would consider
      it abhorrent that they were cutting a person open,” she said.
    

While some of the abuses may be unusual, I suspect the truth is that they
would prefer no one tape the regular day-to-day goings on at factory farms
either.

[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debeaking>

~~~
kefka
Regarding debeaking, it IS not removal of the whole beak. It is the technique
of rounding off the beak.

We've raised chickens before, starting from chicks/eggs. The chicks will peck
at anything, including other chicks. We lost 2 chicks that way, because one
had a bloodspot, and we don't know about the other one. Having rounded beaks
(and the tools to do that) would have saved us 2 animals.

I also saw on Facebook someone moaning about Cannulized cows and the "evil
trauma" it must be. Let alone, it is a great way to monitor the herd (cows)
along with providing rapid response to bad plants causing problems, like
jimpson weed.

If most people had to go through the process of raise animal; slaughter
animal; clean carcass; package meat: Most people would be vegetarians. I've
done it, and would do it again if I had to.

~~~
spacemanaki
You're right, I should have used the word "trimming" since "debeaking" is a
bit loaded. I didn't know that it was still necessary or recommended for
raising chickens in smaller operations, thanks for enlightening me.

I still think that most consumers of eggs (and meat, and milk) who have never
seen a battery cage operation (or factory farm, CAFO, slaughterhouse, etc)
would be surprised, if not horrified, and I suspect that this is the real
motivation behind these laws and lobbying efforts.

~~~
kefka
I very much do agree: much of the current factory farm techniques are just
plain disgusting.

Many of the big egg-ufacturers calculate space per chick in cm^3. They cannot
turn or pretty much move in any direction. General treatment is abhorrent.
Feed is not a natural ground-peck but some nutrient paste pellets filled with
antibiotics. Sanitation is whatever falls through the cage. What doesn't ends
up burning the chickens' feet.

But about my story: We bought 15 chickens. 8 of them were chicks, and 7 were
eggs about to hatch. Baby chicks, especially in an incubator, are harsh little
evil things. They will all peck at whatever is different. Out of 15, we lost
2, which does seem average for farmers. It's also why you use red lights on
chicks too: so they can't see blood.

------
S4M
Can we, as a hacker community, do something about this kind of abuse -
irregardless whether taping animal cruelty becomes illegal or not?

My idea would be to set up some kind of wiki leaks for those videos, where
animal rights militants would be able to anonymously post their videos.

------
marze
They should pass a law requiring 24 hr cameras in all animal facilities
broadcasting to the web. People who care could monitor the feeds.

If no cruelty takes place and those who care about animals not being
mistreated cover the costs, it is win win.

------
joering2
"But a dozen or so state legislatures have had a different reaction"

May we know them by names? "state legislatures" is a body, not a actual
person. I want to know the names so next time they knock at my door asking for
a vote, I know what to say.

------
will_brown
These companies can already include non-disclosure, non-disparagement and non-
circumvention provisions in their employment agreements. If an
employee/undercover investigator violates those contractual terms not only
could they be individually liable for damages but the organizations (news or
animal rights organizations) sponsoring the undercover investigation could
also be liable.

Further, they can contractually prohibit employees from video recording at
their place of employment - there is no need for these companies to be
lobbying for criminal sanctions for this behavior.

------
pyre
Even in the most extreme of cases, I don't see how claiming that A.L.F. even
is a 'terrorist' organisation. Sure they 'liberate' the animals from their
owners, but you don't call a burglar a terrorist. Seems these days like
"breaking the law in the furtherance of a political cause" is the new
definition of terrorism (rather than using violence to sow the seeds to
terror), and we're creating more laws to make more terrorists. Gotta fuel the
War on Terror somehow I guess...

~~~
DanBC
ALF is an umbrella term. There was an ALF press office, which would release
information and propaganda. But anyone was free to perform an action and claim
it for the ALF. Calling an organisation like that terrorist is problematic.
But, still ...

There was a campaign against department stores selling fur in the 80s / 90s.
The claimed intent was to cause massive water damage from sprinkler systems.
People would place incendiary devices into the pockets of clothes (one reason
pockets are now stitched closed) and these devices would go off at night.
Unfortunately sprinkler systems didn't go off, and stores burnt down. 'Out of
hours' does not mean 'empty'; the lives of cleaners, for example, were risked
by this campaign.

There have been other arson campaigns against abattoirs, meat packing /
distribution plants, dairies, etc.

Animal rights activists have dug up corpses.

There has been an extensive campaign of harassment against anyone linked to
Huntingdon Life Sciences; this includes anyone providing any form of service
to HLS. People think in terms of 'legitimate targets'. A company is a
legitimate target. Anyone working for that company is a legitimate target. The
children of, for example, a secretary working for that company are not
legitimate targets.

Early members of ALF got advice from IRA.

Breaking the law to further a political cause is, perhaps, fine. But some of
the extremes done in the name of animal rights are clearly terrorist offences.

~~~
pyre
Maybe so, but the government likes to label all animal rights activists as
terrorists. Even groups like ADL whose expressed mandate is to promote animal
rights via legal means.

My point wasn't that all animal rights activists are angels, but moreso that
there is a bias against them from government/law enforcement. Some anti-
abortion activists have _bombed_ abortion clinics, but you don't see the anti-
abortion movement labelled as a bunch of terrorists.

------
aaronbrethorst
Ah, ALEC is behind it. Color me not shocked. Here's some background:

* [http://swampland.time.com/2012/04/09/alec-what-it-does-and-w...](http://swampland.time.com/2012/04/09/alec-what-it-does-and-why-three-major-corporations-cut-ties/)

* [http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-13/why-are-mcdo...](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-13/why-are-mcdonalds-coca-cola-and-intuit-fleeing-alec)

------
hispanic
If you'd like to take action against Ag-Gag, I suggest signing the petition at
<http://www.ag-gag.org/>. You might also want to consider subscribing to the
FarmForward mailing list and/or making a donation -
<http://www.farmforward.com>

------
Zimahl
Isn't this in direct conflict with whistleblower laws? I mean, it should never
be illegal to report on illegal activity.

However, if PETA feels that a perfectly legal and well-maintained
slaughterhouse should be taped and the 'horrors' shown, that's a different
story. Just because they feel 'meat is murder' doesn't mean that it is.

~~~
lessnonymous
I think that's probably at least the intention of the legislation. When PETA
films some normal farm procedure, they'll add ominous music, show only the
most horrid parts of whatever is happening, desaturate the pictures and tar
the entire industry with being gruesome.

Under 1st Amendment rights, they're allowed to do this. They're not showing
anything that didn't happen so it isn't libelous.

Personally I think the first amendment is out of date. The appeal to it's
authority is a prime example of the Historians Fallacy[1]. In many other
countries there are restrictions on speech -- and that is seen as a generally
good thing. Eg. hate speech, and holocaust denial. Defamation cases are also
able to hide behind the first amendment in the USA, where they cannot
elsewhere.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian%27s_fallacy>

------
CurtMonash
At this point in the US, censorship laws like this usually get defeated.
Fourth Amendment/privacy/etc. are the areas where I'm more worried about civil
liberties.

That said, the reason they get defeated is, in large part, because of the
outcry when they're attempted. I don't want to minimize the need to keep
fighting for freedom.

------
gizmo686
For anyone fammilar with the US legal system, would you need to be tried for
breaking this law before you can challenge it in court (where you would be on
the hook for criminal penalties), or can you proactivly challenge such laws
without breaking them?

~~~
jellicle
Depends!

In some cases, you can make the claim that a certain law is so broad and
clearly unconstitutional that it affects everyone and should be struck down.
The courts may accept such a case or they may say, "no, doesn't look like that
to us, wait until you have someone prosecuted under this law and then come
back and argue about the specific case".

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_challenge>

------
lectrick
Burying your head in the sand was always an excellent survival strategy.

------
gyardley
Sure, it's a silly law, sure, it probably won't survive constitutional review,
and most definitely, true cruelty to animals is a crime.

But this is also a rather predictable backlash against groups who aren't
looking to correct occasional violations of regulations in the meatpacking
industry, but shut down the industry as a whole - devastating local
communities by getting rid of a ton of low-skilled jobs. Since we're not
exactly making more low-skilled jobs these days, many of the people affected
will be impoverished for life, taking their towns with them.

Given that, it's not at all surprising that employees, employers, and local
politicians are responding very aggressively. Any industry under the same
threat would respond the same way.

~~~
hni
> devastating local communities by getting rid of a ton of low-skilled jobs

Why would those communities be devastated? People still have to eat, hence
low-skilled jobs would still be required to produce other kinds of food in the
same local communities.

~~~
gyardley
Meatpacking remains labor intensive in a way that other forms of large-scale
farming are not.

Even if there was labor parity, they're not usually done in the same places.
Meatpacking is usually done near transportation hubs, and ranching is usually
on land that's not suitable for agricultural purposes.

------
Ras_
Unwittingly in this attempt to legislate, they might have found the best way
possible to raise moral justification to do farm tapes in the first place.

------
cpursley
Is there a farm cruelty map? One where locations can be tagged with media,
info about the farm and the farm product buyers? There should be...

------
pvaldes
and now, for something different

With the avian flu problem rising again, Maybe to keep these young activists
out of the farms and safe of touching avian decays is not as bad idea as it
could seem

There are some risks associated to each working place, and is not very sage
that any not autorized people can mess with the human food chain

------
michaelochurch
This is disgusting. Apparently taping animal cruelty in order to influence
economic behavior is now _terrorism_.

This reminds me of how much of the press sat on the wiretapping scandals of
2004 because "it might be political" (meaning it might affect the election,
since Bush was directly responsible). As long as the information is truthful,
that's the press's fucking job!

Ignorance is Strength, Freedom is Slavery, and Truth is Terrorism.

------
MindBoozer
I don't think anyone here has been to a farm.

~~~
TallGuyShort
Wrong

