

Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms - keeshawn
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/2/28/idaho-gov-signs-aggagbillintolaw.html
&quot;Debate about laws governing filming on farms in Idaho started in 2012 when someone hired by Mercy for Animals got a job at a Bettencourt Dairies operation in Hansen and filmed workers caning, beating and sexually abusing cows.<p>The video was used to prosecute employees at the dairy, and it convinced Idaho’s dairy industry to create a worker training program to help prevent animal abuse. But it also set in motion a concerted effort by the dairy industry to make sure such embarrassing videos weren’t made in the state again.&quot;
======
ama729
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.

~~~
bobjordan
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 protected behavior? Bullshit. This behavior
should have risk of consequences.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
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.

~~~
resu_nimda
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.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Snowden is a hero because he exposed that our political class was lying to us.
We make broad exceptions when it comes to the government itself because _there
is no other form of recourse_. If the government is lying to you, you're truly
hosed.

Here, all sorts of things could happen to bring crimes to light. A worker
might rat out his employer. A news crew could be filming some other story. A
civil suit might involve disclosure of practices. The FDA might investigate
the farm as part of some food chain issue.

After all, we've created a seriously complex system of laws and enforcement to
handle stuff like this. Are we now saying that they aren't good enough? If
not, why not fix them, instead of having people sneak around other people's
property? And let's not forget, if you let the special group called "people
who care about animal treatment" violate property rights, then you'll be doing
it for everybody, including people you don't agree with, like perhaps "people
who don't want abortions happening"

Nope, there are tons of ways to catch this crime and punish the criminals.
Let's use them and enough with the self-promotional I'm-upset-so-I-have-a-
right-to-break-the-rules bullshit. No amount of drama here is going to change
my mind about the firm necessity of respecting private property in the
abstract (meaning assuming there isn't more to the story.)

~~~
resu_nimda
Well, a lot of people don't have a lot of faith in the institutional processes
(cf. Deepwater Horizon, many other regulatory failures), and don't want to
wait around for a serendipitous happenstance, that doesn't seem very reliable.

And yeah, there is a fine line between "exposing wrongdoing" and "interfering
with legal business operations," and an activist might not always know which
side they will fall on, but I would prefer to live in a country where they
have some liberty to act on their beliefs.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
This isn't very difficult to do.

Take 100K. Hire private investigators to find people who work at the place in
question and who are not happy. Pay these people for affidavits stating that
animal cruelty goes on. Based on that sworn testimony, go to a federal
prosecutor and get a warrant. Take the warrant and gather evidence. Or, start
a civil action and begin discovery.

This kind of thing is done all the time. But you know what it lacks?
_Publicity_. Because at the end of the day, that's what activists want. It's
not necessarily to stop the wrong, it's to get TV and internet coverage --
just like we see here -- and to use that coverage to raise money, gain
attention, create an even bigger movement.

So yeah, I'm all for activists speaking out. Hell, I'll go march with them.
But not onto somebody else's private property. They can go jump in a lake as
far as I care, no matter what kind of impassioned cause they're thumping their
chests about this week.

Look, either civilization depends on the rule of law or we all get to make
impassioned speeches about things and do what we want because we believe our
beliefs to be so special (more than other people). Count me in as a "rule of
law" guy. Otherwise neither you or I are going to like things very much.

~~~
pkinsky
>This isn't very difficult to do.

>Take 100K.

Are you serious?

~~~
jmccree
PETA has a $10 million budget for "Research, Investigations and Rescue", out
of their $30 million total budget. That's 100 $100k investigations per year
they could fund.

------
coldcode
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.

~~~
cwbrandsma
My background, I am from Idaho, my father, brother, and brother-in-law are all
dairymen, and I worked my dad's dairy for 15 years.

I also know the guy who owns the dairy the film was taken on, and I know quite
a few of the people performing the most ageegious acts were fired soon after
it was published.

But, as an issue, the film was just published, in the most sensational way
they could, and NO effort was made to contact the dairyman ahead of time. The
point of making the film was not help, but to hurt, permanently.

The film that was produced, is being used against all areas of the milk
industry. The people using it add words to the effect of "this is how all
dairies treat their cows". I've already seen it used in campaigns against
yogurt and cheese producers.

Also, the debate continues over here about the law. Some dairymen are
campaigning to reverse the law and open things up completely. But a big issue
is education, too many people in America have never really touched a cow, and
think people treat them like a cat.

~~~
smutticus
If you're interested in fixing the image of dairy farmers in Idaho it's
probably not a good idea to ban filming on farms. Doing so just makes people
assume the worst is happening. If, as you seem to argue, the conditions are
not all that terrible, then why not open all diary farms to filming?

I also don't understand why the publisher should have contacted the dairyman
beforehand. What purpose would that serve if the video would eventually be
published anyway?

People care about where their food comes from now a days, and you're right
that the public is ignorant of dairy techniques. However, you can't complain
about the public's ignorance of dairy farming while at the same time decrying
a publisher for making a move about dairy techniques. Censorship is not an
effective means of education. If the dairymen want the public to be better
educated then they should open their farms up, or start making their own
movies detailing how they raise cows.

------
chrismcb
Why do we need legislation like this? TFA says "[jail and a fine] for people
who secretly enter ... " Do they not already have trespassing laws?

~~~
boomlinde
As far as I understand the U.S. legal system, your crimes add up to your
sentence. This means that you could nail someone for both trespassing and
filming filming at your farm.

~~~
knowaveragejoe
Also, potentially render the video they capture inadmissible in some other
case. I'm not 100% sure about that, though.

------
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.

~~~
nilved
A beef farm is animal abuse and you should be prosecuted by the law.

------
kahirsch
Text of law:
[http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2014/S1337.pdf](http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2014/S1337.pdf)

------
spiritplumber
How does preventing filming helps? The cows don't understand a violation of
their privacy, but I'm reasonably sure they understand being abused.

~~~
girvo
The cows aren't the target here: the people who run the farms and don't want
their dirty laundry aired are. It's a sad situation.

------
koobarbara
"sexually abused", can anyone explain this bit?

~~~
yuvadam
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]

~~~
ndespres
Please don't be obtuse or sensationalize this. You know very well that's not
what's being referred to here.

~~~
yuvadam
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.

~~~
Dylan16807
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.

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

~~~
jessaustin
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?

------
nysv
At least this doesn't brand people doing this as terrorists, like in some
states.

~~~
grecy
Ahh, the old "let's compare to the worst to make it look OK".

i.e., You know, America's health-care is just FINE, compared to Ethiopia's.

This law is terrible, no matter what you compare it to.

------
geekam
It may sound like a rhetoric question but it is not.

Why is the gov. banning filming? What's in it for the gov.?

~~~
lprubin
One side will say that what's in it for the gov is millions of dollars in
campaign contributions from big agriculture.

The other side will say that bad publicity for their dairy industry will hurt
the state's economy and cost jobs and tax revenue.

~~~
pyre
... and yet the third side says that if an entire state's economy is based on
sweeping illegal (and immoral) acts under the rug for the 'greater good,' then
something is severely wrong.

------
dangayle
A farmer's right to privacy, my ass. This law is big agriculture, plain and
simple. These Ag-Gag laws are a farce.

------
chris_wot
This seems a little sensational.

------
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.

------
EGreg
Meanwhile it's ok to film citizens to "prevent terrorism".

I bet you that Idaho law would still allow filming if you suspected terrorism
inside the farm lol

------
cdoxsey
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.

~~~
danvideo
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?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
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.

~~~
boomlinde
Since we are on the topic of pure speculation about the intention of this law,
let's present another theory: it is in the interest of the farming industry to
stop animal rights activists from documenting the illegal practices that are
sometimes involved in producing cheap meat since it would be detrimental to
their business if they were widely known, and they have been lobbying to get
this bill to pass not because of ideological privacy concerns, which are
already protected by other means.

From your description, it seems like there is no "breaking and entering" to
prove. Trespassing, falsified resumés etc., but there are already laws for
that, and the laws themselves don't make it easier or harder to trespass.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Agreed;those are the unfortunate events I referred to. Uglyness all around.

And that there is no 'breaking and entering' was actually my point. Farms are
not houses; yet still private.

------
hispanic
If you don't agree with this, consider signing the ag-gag petition -
[http://ag-gag.org/](http://ag-gag.org/)

------
warineurope
War (possibly a world war) is breaking out in Eastern Europe, and the top
story on hacker news is about cows being caned on farms in Idaho...

~~~
knowaveragejoe
If you're coming to HN for news about geopolitical world events, you're gonna
have a bad time.

