Hacker News Reader

Comment by lighthazard | Hacker News Reader

Can anyone explain the justification for not recording? I can only see positive things come out of it.

From the article, "addressing perceived threats to the state agricultural industry". In other words, the justification is nothing more than "protecting powerful corporate interests takes precedence over individual rights".

You don't in general have a right to trespass, or break-and-enter, and record what you find.

Trespassing and breaking-and-entering were and are still illegal. Ag gag laws went way beyond that; which is why they're unconstitutional.

That's quite the unsupported claim, which is why I wish I could find the decision. Enhancing penalties in certain situations is incredibly common, even with respect to trespassing - trespassing in certain industrial facilities, or in connection with a conspiracy, or involving breaking and entering, all have increased penalties. I don't really see the rationale for not being able to extra-criminalize trespassing for the purposes of recording (regardless of how advisable it is) when there is no right to record entirely private activity in the first place.

Given that you're all over this thread, do you have any connections in the farm industry? Or is this just an issue that you randomly feel strongly about?

The decision is here: https://www.scribd.com/document/353199724/U-S-District-Judge...

In general, application of law must be blind to speech. Yes, trespassing with intent to burgle could lawfully have a greater penalty. Trespassing while shouting "Trump has tiny hands" cannot. This is what "free speech and equal protection" means, and the courts have decided that this applies here.

Wouldn't the limit be that you said something? Eg. if I come into your home and yell something loudly enough to wake you up and destroy your nights sleep, then that should have a higher penalty than just coming into your home?

No. Regulations on speech are not as easy to justify and enforce as regulations on other actions, because of the First Amendment.

What? That's among the weirdest approaches to justifying restrictions on speech I've heard, and it'd be used to ridiculous end if any court took that position.

I mean, I could claim anything upset me enough to cause me to lose sleep, couldn't I? I'm feeling pretty upset right now that someone could say something like what you've said, in fact. I might not be able to sleep knowing there are folks who feel that way.

And, that is effectively what these laws are about; the industrial agriculture industry wants to be completely free from criticism and free from being seen committing crimes. They already have the protection of the law when it comes to breaking and entering, trespassing, etc. They want law that goes beyond that and shields them from any criticism. Which is not a right we in the US have; we can sue for libel, but we cannot demand that people not say true things about us that are unflattering or upsetting to us.

Trespassing is already a crime. It doesn't need to be a double-secret crime just because industrial farmers are afraid of what the trespassers might discover.

Not only that, ag-gag laws forbid someone with legitimate access from recording crimes. So trespassing isn't necessarily involved.

Money.

Would you want someone secretly taking video of the most embarrassing, context-free 5 minutes they could find of your job, and invoking a mob to attack you on that basis?

These environments, or disrupting their operations because you're trying to get a sweet shot, can be legitimately dangerous. Discouraging people from trespassing in search of publicity could certainly constitute a rational basis for such a law.

It's a neat trick to ask what possible justification there could be and then downvote the explanation.

> the most embarrassing, context-free 5 minutes they could find of your job

The five minutes a day I spend trying to quit vim?

When your job is, eg, slaughtering pigs, or swearing at engines, or dealing with abusive customers (or abusive editors I suppose), you might reconsider.

Swearing at engines isn't illegal or morally reprehensible. Animal abuse is.

When that five horrible minutes involves feeding live male chicks into a grinder, or spraying water up the nose of a downer cow to get it to go to slaughter (and be made into people food)? Yes, I think there's a legitimate public right to know.

People wouldn't be as upset if this were just "5 minutes" or just happening at one place. It's systemic and widespread, and for more people to know that it is indeed systemic and widespread, more investigation and exposés are required (even if the abusing parties don't like it). Otherwise people just brush it off saying "this is one isolated instance", "it's just two different places" and all sorts of excuses to avoid confronting the truth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com