about your intent in posting this here.

You referred to this story as as attempt by 'stupid fundamentalist vegans' to 'smear' this corporation and questioned its veracity. Why repost it here, given your opinion?

Can you show me where the poster suggested the "stupid fundamentalist vegans" post, etc? I'm quite curious.

See here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=13858

I made a remark in post #5, and the smear was “stupid fundamentalist vegans”, which I thought was appropriate after watching their video, which was poorly edited. Nevertheless, it's possible that the Butterball turkeys are treated badly, so badly that it's against the law. The case is ongoing, and if there's any substance to the allegations made by Mercy for Animals, Butterball will have big problems.

Mercy for Animals have achieved some results in the past, most recently about showing what's going on with the chickens at Sparboe Farms and the pigs at Select Farms, according to the Wikipedia article on them (Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercy_for_Animals ). Exposing animal abuse is a good thing, but I strongly dislike the format of the alleged Butterball footage. However, if they are right about the animal abuse, they're ok with me.

Source: The Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law

Bills Could Hinder Investigative Reporting

During their 2011 sessions, state legislatures in Iowa, Minnesota, and Florida considered bills that would criminalize recording undercover videos of agricultural operations, drawing First Amendment concerns from animal rights activist groups and media who argued the bills could outlaw journalistic investigations that expose unsafe and unsanitary farming conditions.

For some years, the agricultural industry has argued that videos shot and released by animal rights groups present a distorted view of their operations and unfairly represent meat production practices. Criminalizing the production of the videos, industry officials say, would deter animal rights organizations from distributing misleading videos and prevent contamination of agricultural facilities.

On March 17, 2011 the Iowa House of Representatives passed H.B. 589, a broad bill that proposed blocking the recording of images or sounds at agricultural facilities without owner consent. However, the Iowa Senate did not pass the bill before the legislative session ended. Under the bill, a person would be guilty of “animal interference” if he or she produced “a record which reproduces an image or sound occurring at the animal facility,” possesses or distributes “a record which produces an image or sound occurring at the animal facility,” or entered “onto the animal facility, or remains at the animal facility, if the person has notice that the facility is not open to the public.” The bill also applies to “crop operation interference,” using identical language to the “animal interference” provisions, but replacing the word “animal facility” with “crop operation.” Violation of the law as a first offense would be charged as an aggravated misdemeanor, further offenses a Class D felony. The proposed law would not apply “to an animal shelter, a boarding kennel, a commercial kennel, a pet shop, or a pound.”

Read more: http://www.silha.umn.edu/news/Summer2011/StatesConsiderBanningUndercoverRecordingatAgriculturalOperations.html