wow, one year in jail just for trespassing or taking a photo and doing absolutely no damage.
I wonder how much it costs to buy a legislature house. Can't we crowfund buying it to make "modern" farming illegal?
I wonder how much it costs to buy a legislature house. Can't we crowfund buying it to make "modern" farming illegal?
Many western states have much stricter views on property rights and trespassing than the coasts. The penalties are generally higher even if not dealing with this specific scenario. Even regular ID trespassing law can carry 6mo-1y jail time depending on the circumstances, etc.
One often overlooked thing that isn't particularly applicable in this case is the biosecurity aspect involved in agricultural trespassing. Even trespassing in agricultural areas without taking pictures can carry higher penalties in many states.
The penalties in these laws are higher than just generic secret recording.
Do you have the law that prevents the recording in UT? I only see the tresspassing law. Which by the way, would appear to be a class B misdemeanor if it was agricultural land or if it was a building (same for both your examples).
I wasn't trying to distinguish between land and building, mostly just that they are about recording and specifically animal operations.
I'm almost certain Utah is not the only state that specifically has laws around recording and specifically for animal operations that go beyond just generic trespass, but I don't have time right now to dive in.
Do they, or are they concurrent stemming from the same act in UT?
"not all agricultural recording would fall under trespass"
True. Your example was breaking into a Beyond Meat plant, comparing trespass to interference. In that case, the penalties are similar.
A lesser included offense is an offense which itself constitutes one element of another offense. Under the doctrine of multiplicity, you may either be tried for the lesser included or the offense for which the lesser included is an element — but not both. To be charged with both would run afoul of the constitutional provisions limiting double jeopardy.
This is not part of any Utah statute, it’s a general constitutional principle under US law.
Why you made me say this twice, I do not know.
You could have been constructive and said that criminal trespass was a lesser included offense under section 2d. Or should I just reply to you using a few semirandom words? Relevant search terms include: conversation, context, sentences, convey complete ideas
Honestly, if you just Google the search terms it’s easier for both of us because you can tailor your search to your level of understanding.
If it's too much work for you to engage in a thoughful conversation (per the guidelines), just don't engage at all next time. We don't need low effort "search terms..." comments on here.
You're saying that there wouldn't be penalties for breaking and entering?
also linked in other comment
> but I think it's important our legislation focuses entirely on improving the life of people, exclusively
What about the activists who are motivated by a genuine belief that this is wrong and believe it's their life's work to raise awareness of the issue? Throwing them in jail isn't improving their lives - what framework are you using to pick losers & winners of the people you help vs hurt?
Seems to be the combined wishes of the constituents. Same theory applies to most topics. You can see this in how different states poll on firearms (or abortion, etc) and the types of laws they have on that topic. As an extreme example, the same person can carry the same gun in two different states and be lawful in one and committing a felony in another without causing any damage simply because the values and beliefs expressed by the populations results in different laws. They might even qualify to carry lawfully in both states but are missing a piece of paper confirming it. That's how the laws works - break it and suffer consequences. Maybe it's worth it depeding on your moral convictions. Don't like it, then change the law. In the case of agricultural tresspass, the law is not likely to change in ID based on the current views of the population there.
More importantly, we have ideals and principles that supersede the will of the public. Arguably the most sacred ideal in America is the First Amendment with respect to protections about speech & this is pretty adjacent in that the law is criminalizing speech for something that should arguably be a civil matter at best. Laws like this are not dissimilar to passing a law protecting employers from employees trying to document unsafe working conditions.
So the idea that the law is purely an expression of the wishes of the constituents is nice but not borne out in the structure of modern democratic governments, not borne out in practice because of how power & money intermix, & invalidated by the idea that we have principles that supersede the wishes of those constituents.
[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
That's why I mentioned polling and gave generally verifiable examples.
Yes, money can sway the legislature or even the views of constituents. And yes, most topics have a large number of people who don't care because they don't know or the topic doesn't affect them. However, polling and other research can show how the population views the topic pertaining to the law and the culture in general.
"criminalizing speech for something that should arguably be a civil matter at best."
This is factually incorrect. The speech portion of this would be the sharing of the picture. The part that is criminalized is trespassing and recording to get that picture. The civil part would be stuff like libel or slander.
"So the idea that the law is purely an expression of the wishes of the constituents is nice but not borne out in the structure of modern democratic governments"
I never said it was a pure expression. You can clearly see that property rights are a part of the culture of most western states. Yes, those laws were influenced by the wealthy over generations, but it's now become part of the culture.
Beef is incredibly expensive in terms of costs of food, land, and water -- and in high density situations - rapid disease spread (and post consumption disease spread via cancer, metabolic, and heart disease)
By promoting sustainable diets, mostly vegetarian with optional beef splurges
- food costs decrease
- food transport costs decrease
- disease caused by diets decrease