Couple of side facts:
* some of the employees were rightfully jailed for animal cruelty.
* the dairyman in question has been receiving death threats ever since, even tho he is not personally responsible for the actions films, and he fired the offending employees soon after. (note, this is not a small dairyman, he has +300 employees, you can't personally monitor everyone all of the time).
* the film has been redubbed constantly to attack other operations -- even tho they weren't filmed.
* Most of the dairymen in this state are sole operators, or family owned. If you say "corporate owned farm", you aren't talking about my region, or we have a difference of opinion as to what constitutes a corporation.
* it was a bad law, it needed to be revoked, even the dairymen in this state were uneasy about it. What got it passed quickly were all the death threats against the owner. Lawmakers were very concerned about that spreading.
* The dairymen in the state aren't worried about filming, they are worried about lies coming from it. Some groups are actively hell-bent against them. I've seen them, I've talked with them. The worst have no problem saying anything, because there won't be repercussions.
* As most of the dairies are really sole operators, they are very concerned about their reputation and having that get away from them. Often the dairymen see it as "someone else's lies against them in a world where no one is going to believe them".
I understand someone will see what I wrote and say I'm full of shit, oh well I guess. But understand, these people are my friends and family. I see and hear their struggles, and I watch them take care of their animals. Most actually do care for them, but at the same time, have to struggle with running a business that depends on those animals. You don't work with animals because you hate animals.
This is complete and utter bullshit. The whole animal cruelty issue has been in the news for years and to say you did nothing to investigate your own operations or do anything to monitor the activity is negligence. I saw the video too!
I have a friend in the Dairy business with around 150 employees. His entire operation is video monitored around the clock.
I just don't buy arguments like this. I see them as excuses. Your friend may be a good person and all but not doing more to prevent the bad apples is just no excuse in my book.
The sad thing is people need to be kept in check. For if the video never came out, this dairyman would probably have continue business as usual since he never bothered to do his own audits or install video surveillance.
Additionally, Idaho is known for its libertarian attitudes, and around-the-clock video surveillance of the entire premises is quite at odds with those ideals. I don't find it hard to imagine that an agricultural operation with video surveillance is meaningfully less attractive to employees.
And finally, how bad are the attrocities in these videos relative to the conditions that animals are normally kept in? They can get pretty bad, but I don't think there's an order of magnitude of difference. How much worse is it to be beaten when you already live your life in a cage sitting in your own filth? If you are utterly disgusted by the abuse revealed in these videos, can you really justify modern livestock farming at all? Either you accept that we should treat animals as objects, as we are evolutionarily prepared to do, or you can argue that because we now have the infrastructure available to us to treat animals with respect, we have the responsibility to do so. You can choose a position somewhere along that spectrum, but if you draw the line between imprisoning animals in unliveable conditions so unhealthy that they are fed antibiotics to prevent the spread of disease, and beating them, then I'd argue that the level of precision of your position on the animal rights spectrum is irrationally high, and that it cannot be based in logic.
Animal rights activists are happy to supply it and operate it.
Here's the thing though, the vast majority of where the US gets it's milk from is less of a farm nowadays and more of a factory, that's why milk production efficiency has shot up in the past 100 years --because we started treated these animals more and more like objects using practices such as "rape racks" to keep cows constantly pregnant and producing peak amounts of milk.
We also bred them to produce so much milk their bodies are basically spent after 4 years (20% of their natural life span), and we kill them. We could quibble over minor differences in the numbers and terms but that's not my point, I'm pretty sure you can agree those are common practices on farms where the majority of US citizens get their milk. Capitalism has gotten right up in this farming eked every ounce of efficiency out of these animals so there's no space for any compassion.
There's so much broken there, and I don't want you and your friends jobless, I want you on better jobs not based on exploiting poor animals. Hell, we give billions of dollars in subsidies to dairy farmers, that money should be spent helping transition. That's just my take, I'm sure you get exposed to a lot of the vocal minority vegans, the vegans I know don't hate the people, just the system.
On milk factories and breeding, yes. That is part of the current game. But I would argue that selective breeding has been done for centuries, we've just gotten better at it. Capitalism has basically forced dairymen to become more efficient -- which is good and bad. My grandfather's cows gave 40-50 lbs of milk per day, my father's cows give 80 (some up to 120). There are consequences when that happens. How you get there is better breeding and better feed (feed has a lot to do with it).
On cow longevity, the lifespan of a dairy cow is actually a little longer than that, but the actual longevity it depends on the breed. Holsteins go for about 6 years (lets not kids ourselves, that is not a huge jump in longevity compared to your stated 4). As a comparison, the typical beef cow lives about 2 years. I would talk about veal....but even I don't eat veal. After 6 years the animal is "beefed", as kids we would called it "sold to McDonald's". My next door neighbor was a butcher, basically the only parts unused in a cow are the tail and the moo. Almost nothing goes to waist.
Never heard of a "rape rack", I had to look it up. I know a lot of AI breeders as well, that isn't how it is done on the dairies I've seen. From what I've seen it is not necessary, it is pretty easy to get the job done. But, lets talk female cows...ok, lets bring in biology here, female herbivores of almost any herd species (cows, buffalo, goats, sheep, etc) don't have many periods if there are functioning males around. If those animals are ovulating, the males notice -- even the females notice and tell the males about them.
On subsidies: most subsidies are "floors". No one gets money from the government unless the price of their product drops consistently below a set point. This happened for a brief period in 2009, and even then a lot of operations went out of business (which is by design actually). This isn't like farmers being paid to not farm (that happens -- ugg). But you also can't say the government is completely out of it either, because the government does buy a lot of milk product, usually powdered milk protein, which is often sent as aid to other countries.
Finally, I don't know if I would say a that everything is broken, but lets agree that things could be better. Somewhere between the ideals and where we are now is probably a workable solution that is good for the cows and keeps people's livelihoods.
As for selective breeding, I sure am impressed by the three fold increase in milk production! Sure, it's selective breeding, but that takes a huge toll on the animal, we don't consider its effect on the animal beyond its ability to live to give us that milk. Once again, we treat them as objects rather than animals that should have their own considerations. *One only needs to look as far as dog breeding to see an example of how much selective breeding can screw with an animal.
It's strange though, your post brings me close to my initial thoughts that lead me to veganism... where is a workable solution in a capitalist system where the only thing we value out of these animals is the quantity of flesh and milk we get out of them? There aren't any laws protecting them which aren't self enforced (the Animal Welfare Act explicitly excludes farm animals). I cannot agree that there is a workable solution except moving past this system, thanks for your thoughts and reply.
I've seen many posts from dairy farmers turning away from the industry and going vegan, becoming champions for the cause, you seem like a nice and reasonable person, hope someday to see you in the tofu aisle!
The whole debate will be moot as soon as synthetic meat and dairy tech comes online. People will say it's a revolting idea at first, but it will rapidly become socially unacceptable to harvest live animals once there's a viable alternative.
I actually expect this trend to be pushed by the meat industry, not fought by it. Nobody wants to be in the animal-husbandry business less than the factory farms, because animals are expensive and inconvenient to deal with. It's going to make for a fascinating socioeconomic transition.
I think farms will see it as too much of a threat, and there isn't really applicable skills for going from a factory farm to vats or whatever the tissue is grown in.
Ruminating on it a bit more, I see how you could be right for larger animal ag company. A dairy producer owns "So Delicious" coconut based yogurt and dairy alternatives, they could see it as a good way to diversify.
I'd be particularly wary of anyone citing vertical farms as being a cost saver: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming#Problems.
To be clear, it's possible that these problems are surmountable. But frankly, it would be a hell of a lot cheaper (both economically and from an environmental standpoint) to change our dietary habits; meat with every meal is going to be costly no matter what.
The cows that exist now are essentially useless without farmers. If you are ethically bound with them, how do you come to terms with the terror they will live through until they die?
My ideal solution would be a steep decline in dairy production with a coinciding decrease in the breeding of dairy cows until they are gone and hopefully many moved to farm sanctuaries. Each life born into that industry is a short life of suffering.
This would help save many wild species as animal agriculture is the leading cause of species extinction and ocean dead zones.
Veganism isn't some simple "every life must live no matter what" it's that if we don't have to harm an animal we shouldn't. If we're ethically bound with them, how do we deal with the terror they CURRENTLY live through until they die?
Your assertion that their life in a farm is worse than a life in fear of predators is largely unfounded and seems to be based on "no humans = humane" doublethink.
We choose to put all these cows into the world (even though we don't need them) and give them shitty conditions. The onus is on us just stop the cycle and let them drastically decrease in numbers and die out so we don't keep on bringing million more into existence.
Are you considering what your arguing? You think that life trapped in a container where you're forced to become impregnated every year and have your baby stolen within a few days after it's born is better than living free for a time with your herd? That view is divorced from reality. Mountain lions may rip your throat out, but they don't enslave your species and put you in such confined controlled environments that the only meaningful decision you can make is which way to turn your head.
Cows are herbivores, but just like us the extent of their desire doesn't end at getting food and sleeping. They're social creatures who care for their young and live in groups. Us putting them in cages and forcing them to produce milk 24 / 7 in not how they want to be.
Your argument about there being no natural predators is really pointless. I never said they should immediately be set free, that's a juvenile perspective. I do want you to understand you need to try and support your claims and do research, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Feral_cattle.
Mountain lions toy with prey and cause very violent deaths that can orphan calves leading them to starve. I fail to see how that is a better outcome.
I wasn't kidding about looking stuff up, you're the one arguing based on your gut feel of what you think the world is rather than trying to support your claims.
I think you're invoking a human emotion about dying and having a short life which is entirely meaningless in the context of cows.
If that happens all the time, then very probably these issues could be avoided by proper care. Breeding has a lot to do with it, also.
> rape racks
There is a difference between leaving a creature in open space with a herd around them, teeth and hooves available for "speech", and locking a creature to a rack where they are alone and powerless to dissuade penetration.
Cattle is low on the food chain, while humans are at the top. It makes sense for animals at the top of the food chain to be more selective with regard to sex because it's important for their offspring to be highly fit. Lower on the food chain, having the most fit offspring isn't as important, unless they can reliably be fit enough to always evade predators. Since illness and injury can always happen, it's more important to have many offspring than it is to have especially fit ones. Ergo more sex, and less selectivity with regard to partners.
Anyway, I'm not a biologist, and I haven't heard of any research on this topic. For all I know, what I just said is complete bullshit, but it seems to me to hold more water than blindly applying human morality to non-human animals.
If a cow doesn't struggle in a 'rape rack', how is that not consent then?
>There is a difference between leaving a creature in open space with a herd around them, teeth and hooves available for "speech"
If that argument were valid, anyone that didn't resist during a gang rape because of fear of repercussion would be 'consenting'.
Also, there are plenty of species where sex is straight up violent. Projecting human sexual standards onto other animals is idiotic at best.
Blocking people from talking about it — you know, "prior restraint" — is emphatically not the solution.
This survey contradicts that assertion: http://www.aele.org/loscode2000.html
From the survey:
`In response to “Please describe the first time you witnessed misconduct by another employee but took no action,” 46 percent (532) advised they had witnessed misconduct by another employee, but concealed what they knew.`
If we can trust the survey results, methodology, etc, the minority of which you speak is 46%.
The 46% you cite numbers among the latter. For all you know, though, the people those 46% are talking about having seen committing "misconduct" are the same folks over and over.
I'm not downplaying police abuses, and I'm not excusing the people who don't speak up and call it out when it occurs, but I think it remains useful to make a distinction between them.
> but conceal or misrepresent what they've seen.
That's lying. They're accomplices to the abuse and worse, perpetual enablers of it.
Apologies for veering the thread off-topic. I'm just bothered by the notion of "it's just a few bad apples."
- from http://www.vox.com/2015/5/28/8661977/race-police-officer
So if K.L. Williams, "who has trained thousands of officers around the country in use of force", is right, the 15% bad actors (your "overwhelming minority") turns into 85%. That is consistent with not just the survey troym links to, but the experiences described by those people victimized by police injustice. I doubt many HN readers are in that population.
The locksmith said to him "Locks aren't for people like me. If someone wants to break in, a lock isn't going to stop them. 15% of people will try to steal no matter what you do. 15% will never take anything even if you leave your door while open. Locks are for that 70% in the middle that will steal if the opportunity is right."
The fact is, sadly, that in any free society freedom of speech will be misused by some people.
And the fact remains that in this particular space, we do need people to be able to blow the whistle if something wrong is being done. We know that bad things do happen, and when they do, they can be horrifying. The animals have basically no defense but the conscience of the owner, and, should that fail, a whistleblower.
Your friends need better support from society. Some of that support may be from the laws (against death threats, slander, etc.). Some of that support needs to come from outside the laws, in the form of more speech countering the incorrect speech, as well as in the form of norms on civilized behavior. Some of that needs to come from a greater willingness to talk about where the food we eat comes from, how it doesn't just show up magically on grocery store shelves.
But bad laws won't help them in the long run, nor will they help society.
> The dairymen in the state aren't worried about filming, they are worried about lies coming from it.
Libel laws already exist. We don't ban people from speaking because they might say something they could be held civilly liable for. I know suing people for libel is a pain in the ass (and apparently in Idaho it's much easier to just have your state legislature pass a law), but that's the price you pay to live in a free society.
But.. filming the others was made illegal.
Case in point: the dairy abuse video that was shot (let agree, it was bad). I've seen it rework and targeted at a milk creamery in Oregon (all via YouTube and Facebook). The video state that this was how the Oregon creamery treated its cows. Couple problems: the dairy wasn't in Oregon, it was in Idaho. The dairy in Idaho doesn't sell to the creamery in Oregon. And the creamery in Oregon DOESN'T OWN ANY COWS. They contract their milk from dairymen in Oregon.
If the film is popular (and therefore does more damage), the filmmaker will probably have the means to adequately compensate the farmer. If it isn't popular, it probably won't do much damage to the farmer.
Limiting free speech isn't a good solution.
Of course if a dairymen are worried about abuses coming to light and hurting their reputation, the right response would be for them to prevent those abuses in the first place, to bring them to light themselves, and to report employees who violate the rules. Nobody has access to the facility like the owner. If an undercover investigator can do it, then so can the dairyman.
Claiming to care about the animals doesn't mean much when the animals you claim to care about are being mistreated. Plenty of people who work with animals mistreat them, and that's something that needs to stop.
This was a crappy law i agree, however it really was not doen to support small farmers (and you pretty much agree that they didnt like the law). There are already laws to deal with death threats, as for the reputation the farmers can monitor their own premises and use this to refute any BS claims.
That this even needed to be reviewed because it passed state legislatures is insane. That it's a law mimicked by many states is very seriously disturbing. It means that there are hundreds or more of elected representatives that will gladly put corporate greed above constituent health and well being.
Very well said.
Whether or not chickens are of moral consequence is an argument that can be had; it is perfectly reasonable to for the owners of these factory farms to either argue that chickens are not of moral consequence and deserve no more protection or consideration than the rocks in a quarry or that the methods they use are moral and do not constitute an unreasonable mistreatment of the chickens.
But they prefer not to have that argument; this is not unlike many other industries who prefer to avoid moral arguments by hiding or denying the facts.
I wonder how much of the shift in public opinion on animal rights is a result of people not being exposed to farm animals anymore. The vast majority of people these days, myself included, meets only pets (and occasionally wild animals). If the only examples of animals you have in your personal life are companions, it's natural to want to treat animals well.
 E.g. How Anthropomorphism Affects Empathy Toward Robots http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~pr10/publications/hri09.pdf
 The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment http://www3.nd.edu/~wcarbona/Haidt%202001.pdf
 The Status of Moral Emotions in Consequentialist Moral Reasoning http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/Fran...
 The Secret Joke of Kant's Soul http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~lchang/material/Evolutionary/Dev...
So, "empathy" towards chickens in these systems isn't just anthropomorphism or oversensitivity.
A lot of the same reasoning applies to dairy farms, but there the issues get more complicated.
It's important to consider every issue carefully, but if you're looking for good intentions or honest arguments, you will very frequently be disappointed.
Trying to start a poultry farm here can quickly lead to modern-day indentured servitude with punishments for trying to find recourse. John Oliver's "Chickens"  documents this well.
Extending the ag-gag law beyond animals to children and elderly sickens me, but is not surprising considering the state legislature's high level of what I consider traditional conservatism (think Old South).
yep, in Grand Scheme of Things it is just typical reaction of conservatives to progress (in this case to 2 specific pieces of progress - in technology and in moral - ubiquitous cameras and increased empathy toward and recognition of at least some animal rights). While such reaction is ultimately doomed, in the [pretty long] meantime it will serve as a significant drag on the progress and cause a lot loss and suffering, to the society as whole, to individual people and animals affected.
Browse through their catalogue for some additional ideological templates such as
* Capital Gains Tax Elimination
* Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment
* "Freedom" from forcing utilities to use renewable sources
* Flat tax
* Law preventing towns from requiring food health labeling
* "Free Contract in Financing Act" repeals usury laws
* "Intrastate Coal and Use Act" exempts states from EPA regulation
* the "Living Wage Mandate Preemption Act" no explanation necessary
* "Pre-emption of Local Agriculture Laws Act"
and hundreds more!
How can you be named "Butch" and not be a biker? Idahoans, explain yourselves!
Also, not only is "Butch" not the biker in question, but the biker in question was not even the weirdest candidate for office. The televised gubernatorial debate was so bizarre it made Colbert. Enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYntFCsukNk (really gets going at 0:40)
IANAL but I thought it is legal as long as one of the parties consents to the recording. I could secretly tape a conversation with you without your knowledge since I consent to it. However, the police would need court approval to tape our conversation since neither of us consent.
Laws on consent for recording vary from state to state, and all-party consent is required in some.
Let's talk about "disproportionate" representation. Idaho is home to 1.6m people (http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2014/tables/N...). It has 2 votes in the Senate, like every other state, or 2% of the total, and 2 votes in the House (http://www.house.gov/representatives/#state_id), or 0.46%. According to the Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/popclock/) the United States has a population of 321m. Therefore Idaho has 0.498% of the US population. Accordingly, it is underrepresented in the House and, like most states, overrepresented in the Senate. Overall, Idaho has 4 out of 535 votes in the legislature, or 0.748%, meaning that Idahoans have about 1.5 votes per person. That's a very small margin, especially considering both the underrepresentation in the House and the tiny overall representation. Just how disproportionate is this? Well, if you took away just one representative, the state would be underrepresented overall, as well as being grossly underrepresented in the House. Granularity works against us here; there is no way to fairly represent states with moderate populations like Idaho.
Perhaps this should be telling us that we really aren't one nation and shouldn't attempt to govern such a large number of diverse people with a single set of laws. Again... regardless of what I personally think about abortion or ag-gag laws.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that we should not try to govern such a huge diverse nation with one set of laws. But then we should get rid of the Commerce Clause. States should be able to erect trade barriers to keep other states from undermining their social policies with race to the bottom behavior.
You should either have one nation, with everyone getting one vote, or a collection of nation states that can use their full range of natural advantages against other nation states.
When just looking at the representation in the Senate, Idaho has 4% of the votes but only 0.49% of the population... A factor of nearly 10.
The make-up of the US government was always intended as a way to balance equal representation by state (Senate) and population (House). The problem is that while the original 13 states were relatively uniform in size we have since created states with vastly different populations (Wyoming is 68x smaller than California!).
-police, prosecutor and intelligence service raided headquarter of newspaper that broke the story, assaulting and beating editor-in-chief http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27945687
-prosecutor immediately opened investigations into illegal wiretapping
-full two months later prosecutor was forced to open investigation into actual content of tapes, this investigation was naturally quickly killed off.
-head of government and political party implicated in leaked tapes was punished by ... jokes, he was awarded presidency over whole fucking European Council
-new law passed making audio recordings All-party consent, and outlawing using as evidence any and all recordings made without court order :-) instant immunity from further wiretaps.
So, in part, this pretty much the legislation privacy advocates call for, though passed with different intentions and motivations...
BUT The fact that this law WAS even on the books is blatant proof that Dollars buy Laws in the United states. I think this has gotten much more egregious since the citizens United Ruling. We are very much veering towards an Oligarchy.
Anyway, that law sounds incredibly unconstitutional. Maybe there would have been a different outcome for the law if it made investigative journalism illegal in all cases and not just when you're specifically investigating pigfucking.
Thus far, no actual treaty has ever been invalidated; the closest is an executive agreement in Reid v. Covert: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert
In other words, we can't force other countries to not all agree to raise tariffs on goods that they import from the US. The constitution doesn't matter, because they are foreign governments. Our laws have no bearing there.
If that wasn't the case then any country could use their laws to force people in other countries to do whatever. Certain activities would be both required and banned at the same time. Here in the US it's illegal to coerce a voter, and in Australia voting is mandatory. There's no way to reconcile those two laws.
Honestly, I would think it more likely that private contracts, particularly NDAs, would be used to prevent undercover investigations. You can (more or less) sign away your First Amendment rights, after all.
So, if I understand this properly, you're saying that the government can't make you sign away your first amendment rights, but they can order you not to speak ('disclose information') and then jail you?
Also, it's not really a counterexample, because you do not sign away your rights when you sign the enlistment papers, you loose some of your rights by simply being part of the military. People who where drafted back in the 60s also lost had their rights limited, even though they did not voluntarily sign any papers or agreed to anything.
Further, this is an act of the government, and not a civil contract. No CIVIL CONTRACT can take away ANY of your constitutional rights.
Civilian law generally applies to active duty military personnel the same as to anyone else (though some laws have express exceptions or alternate provisions for military personnel), and the UCMJ even provides for the delivery of military personnel accused of violations of law by the civil authorities to be delivered to those authorities. [UCMJ Art. 14, 10 U.S.C. Sec. 814]
More to the point upthread, members of the military retain First Amendment rights, and military regulations have been struck down for violating the First Amendment.
Its not unheard of for senior officers' careers to be ended after a negative OIG report.
There is plenty of stuff in these treaties that I don't like, but this particular claim does not strike me as very plausible. But I could be wrong!
How about we pass another, federal law. Any politician who votes for or promotes any law that actively and intentionally seeks to violate the first amendment is guilty of treason.
EDIT: Doing some fact-checking, I'm unable to substantiate this claim, beyond ALEC's "model law", written in 2002, called, the "Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act", and a number of proposed and sponsored bills in state legislatures, none of which appear to have passed with "terrorism" verbiage intact. Sorry for the noise.
Wow, that's going to be lots of fun. That would include every politician who voted for the campaign finance limits overturned by Citizens United. And every one who voted for the Affordable Care Act would have been on very thin ice, although the Hobby Lobby case ended up not being decided on 1st Amendment grounds.
Careful what you wish for.
Were Congress to pass a putative law which purported to do that, and were any effort made to enforce it, it would no doubt be quickly struck down by the federal courts for the cavalier way in which it flies directly in the face of U.S. Const., Art. III, Sec. 3, clause 1.
Treason's not a hammer to beat your political opponents over the head with. Electoral accountability and separation of powers between the branches is the control on unconstitutional laws, not Treason prosecutions.
And, on a more practical level, if you don't have the federal executive and the judiciary on your side, your new federal "Treason" definition does you no good against politicians pushing laws that would violate the first amendment. But if you have the federal executive and judiciary on your side, all the laws violating the first amendment in the world that can be passed aren't going to have any effect. So, aside from its unconstitutionality and undesirability on a theoretical level, there are in practice no situations where your law would both (a) be needed, and (b) have any effect.
The idea of a federal court striking down a law duly enacted by a state legislature (by more than 2/3 of each house) on the basis of the federal constitution, as happened here, would have been very disquieting to the framers.
They might have been disquieted by the kind of restrictions on the state that emerged later based on the civil war amendments, especially the 14th, but then, many modern Americans would be disquieted by the founders acceptance of slavery while speaking of equality popular sovereignty.
The founders weren't gods, but men taking some controversial--even among each other--steps forward for the political context of their day.
I very much doubt that's the case: if so, they were fairly stupid. Giving federal courts the ability to strike down state laws is necessary when we have the Commerce Clause. It's about balance: kill the Commerce Clause, and you can let the states sort it out (e.g. California could say, "ok, Idaho, you want to pass a law that unjustly jails people for reporting on agricultural criminal activity... fine, go for it, but we're going to ban imports of all your goods into our state"). Keep the Clause, and you need something to check potentially-abusive state power.
But I agree with you, the original design was stupid. I'm just saying that before people start frothing at the mouth about the spirit of the first amendment, they bear in mind it wasn't originally intended to be used the way it was here.
The Constitution is a federal law; the enforcement of the Constitution -- including against State violations -- is included within the enforcement of federal law. This is fairly express in the Constitution, and it was clear in practice in the first couple decades the Constitution was in operation.
Now, the protections in the Bill of Rights didn't extend to the States under the original Constitution, so its true that enforcing the Bill of Rights against the States was not part of that -- but not because the original design didn't involve the federal judiciary enforcing the federal Constitution against the States, but because that part of the federal Constitution didn't apply to the States. (And, technically, it doesn't now, either, however the current understanding is that 14th Amendment due process applies protects fundamental rights -- many of which are coextensive with, or at least closely approximate, those protected against federal encroachment by the Bill of Rights -- against state encroachment.)
(Note that I'm assuming "promote" to be defined as "communicate a desire for"; should other definitions be applicable, said definitions may be more or less subject to First Amendment protections)
And  is a sort of self-authority granted.
 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
Isn't this still legal under the various "wiretapping" laws prohibiting the recording of conversations without all parties' consent? Those are criminal laws.
"Ag-Gag laws are notoriously unsupported by the public. Nationwide thirty-two similar Ag-Gag measures have failed. Currently, seven states have Ag-Gag laws on the books. This Idaho decision is just the first step in defeating similar Ag-Gag laws across the country."