Hacker News Reader

Comment by trhtrsh | Hacker News Reader

Why do you need a law to ban something that is already illegal, or something that is intentionally protected by law? Trespassing and violating private legal activity is already illegal, and whistleblowing on criminal activity is protected by current law.

View on HN

The point isn't that video tapers should be prosecuted as anything other than as trespassers. The point is that the constitutionality of the law derives from the same place. It is not an exercise of free speech to go onto private property to do pretty much anything.

then we can expect a cascade of similar legislation banning taping in non-profits (Acorn), pseudo-private areas, etc.?

Seems to me institutions like Acorn that accept the public as part of their operation can't really prosecute a whistleblower as a trespasser. I'm not sure what a pseudo-private area is.

What raynier is saying (I think) is that if it is illegal to trespass, then it is illegal to trespass for purposes of whistleblowing because that is still trespassing - imagine if they had trespassed, filmed, and found nothing illegal. If one of the farm workers were to film the video, there would have been no trespassing - it would constitute whistleblowing.

It is farm workers filming the videos. It just happens that these farm workers got hired as farm workers with the sole intention of filming the videos and did not disclose this intention to their employer. I'm not sure how it can be construed as trespassing to enter your place of employment, regardless of what your intentions are.

> What raynier is saying (I think) is that if it is illegal to trespass, then it is illegal to trespass for purposes of whistleblowing because that is still trespassing

Not exactly. What I'm saying is:

1) The Constitution only prohibits governments from restricting free speech;

2) What you do on other peoples' private property is rarely if ever considered free speech or free expression.

On the other hand, the consequences of trespassing are typically pretty mild and don't usually include being placed on a "terrorist registry".

Following these heavy handed approaches to whistle-blowers and undercover reporting, then Acorn should be protected from terrorists using some 'intent to harm' argument. You see how insane this all becomes. I hope these legislations are challenged, tossed out, and in the meantime circumnavigated to reveal the barbaric treatment that occurs.

So is cruelty to animals...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com