Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Little Tich

(6,171 posts)
5. States Consider Banning Undercover Recording at Agricultural OperationsIowa, Florida, and Minnesota
Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:42 PM
Jan 2012

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

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Vegetarian, Vegan and Animal Rights»Butterball turkey plant r...»Reply #5