Idaho's Ag-Gag Law Essay
Someone has just entered the police station holding images that could possibly cause mass hysteria within the food industry. Cows, pigs, chickens, all being horribly beaten and tortured before their meat is put on the market. The condition the animals are kept in are cramped and unsanitary, there being hardly any room for the animals to move in and mud and feces littering the ground. The person has filmed all this in the hopes that such a facility will be shut down on the charges of animal cruelty, yet when the authorities return they put the person in cuffs on the charges of interfering with agricultural production. He or she could face jail time and heavy fines while the abuser’s misdeeds are ignored. Many cases like this one are now being reported throughout Idaho and other states such as Kansas, Iowa, and Utah. By not allowing these photos and recordings to be published the states are breaking the First Amendment. Animal rights activists obtaining evidence that could incriminate farmers for animal abuse may be forced to pay the abusers large fees. Not to mention that animal abusers are being punished more leniently than those who break the "Ag-Gag" law (the shortened name given to the law, which stands for agriculture gag). People should have the right to enter agriculture production facilities under false claims to gain evidence against animal abuse.
When the Bill of Rights was made it had the peoples best interests in mind. However, the Ag-Gag law is defying these rights, taking way what the people have the indefinite right to. The United States Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law [...] prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” (Amend. I Sec. I). This is clearly stating that there shall be no prohibition upon what a person says or reveals to the public, something which the agricultural law violates completely. “A person commits the crime of interference with agricultural production if the person knowingly [...] without the facility owner's express consent or pursuant to judicial process or statutory authorization makes audio or video recordings of the conduct of an agricultural production facility's operations” (S. 1337, 2014). The quote directly states that any audio or video recordings are illegal if made without the consent of the owners, even if it depicts graphic scenes that would otherwise be illegal. Some may argue it isn't going against the amendment, yet it clearly does if you get to the core of the law. The Ag-Gag law criminalizes someone who publishes certain images or recordings. The First Amendment says that everyone has the right to publish anything in the media. Broken down to its barest form the law shows it is unconstitutional.
Money has always been the downfall of man. It rules humankind with an iron grip, and has since been seen as a reward and goal to gain. From this fact it is obvious that losing money is a punishment. Idaho’s new agriculture law makes it so those who break it must pay a fee to the person or company they have wronged, the same person or company that torments their animals and serves infected meat. Senate Bill 1337 states, “[...]the court shall require any person convicted, found guilty or who pleads guilty to a violation of this section to make restitution to the victim of the offense [...]. Provided however, that such award shall be in an amount equal to twice the value of the damage resulting from the violation of this section”. The “perpetrators” only crime was to prevent the suffering of innocent beings and stop people from getting possible ailments from diseased meat, yet they’re paying for it (and quite literally so). One of the largest meat recalls in history was caused by ill cows being put in the U.S. food supply. The incident is described in David Brown’s article USDA Orders Largest Meat Recall in U.S. History published in the Washington Post, where Brown says, “The Agriculture Department has ordered the largest meat recall in its history -- 143 million pounds of beef [...] because the company did not prevent ailing animals from entering the U.S. food supply”. He goes on to say the cause of it such a calamity was a video depicting, as the USDA called, “egregious violations” or animal care and sanitary conditions. Imagine if such a video was not made, and that the diseased cattle plagued thousands of people who only wanted a good burger. The symptoms shown by the cows were akin to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), better known as “mad cow disease”. Without the availability of such revealing videos hundreds of people could fall ill and die from the fatal disease. Yet greedy people would argue that it cost the meat company a substantial amount of money and could harm the economy. Those same people would therefore be arguing the welfare of people and animals is less important than money. A law supporting such ideals puts lives at risk and ranks money higher than life itself.
In general it is unjust to punish a hero and praise a villain. It would be like throwing Charles Xavier in jail and giving Magneto a medal. To many people this would seem outrageous, yet that is exactly what is happening to those who try to stop animal cruelty within the agriculture business. The Ag-Gag law states, "A person found guilty of committing the crime of interference with agricultural production shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a term of imprisonment of not more than one (1) year or by a fine not in excess of five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both such fine and imprisonment.” In comparison to the animal cruelty law which states"[...]any person convicted for a first violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall be punished, for each offense, by a jail sentence of not more than six (6) months or by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) or more than five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both such fine and imprisonment"(Title 25 Animals, Sec. 25-3520A). People may argue that the animal rights activists could be costing the company money, laying people off jobs, and wasting the company’s time. However the animals are protected under animal cruelties law and have the right to live a comfortable life. Anyone preventing them from having these rights is both breaking the law and a heartless person. A law should never be created that punishes those who protect the innocent.
The lives of animals may seem meek to those who don’t understand that they can feel pain, and that they have feelings. Making certain images and videos illegal is unconstitutional. Giving punishment to those fighting against evil and fining them into debt isn't morally right. People should therefore have the right to make videos or images of animal cruelty under false pretense if it means ending animal cruelty.
When the Bill of Rights was made it had the peoples best interests in mind. However, the Ag-Gag law is defying these rights, taking way what the people have the indefinite right to. The United States Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law [...] prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” (Amend. I Sec. I). This is clearly stating that there shall be no prohibition upon what a person says or reveals to the public, something which the agricultural law violates completely. “A person commits the crime of interference with agricultural production if the person knowingly [...] without the facility owner's express consent or pursuant to judicial process or statutory authorization makes audio or video recordings of the conduct of an agricultural production facility's operations” (S. 1337, 2014). The quote directly states that any audio or video recordings are illegal if made without the consent of the owners, even if it depicts graphic scenes that would otherwise be illegal. Some may argue it isn't going against the amendment, yet it clearly does if you get to the core of the law. The Ag-Gag law criminalizes someone who publishes certain images or recordings. The First Amendment says that everyone has the right to publish anything in the media. Broken down to its barest form the law shows it is unconstitutional.
Money has always been the downfall of man. It rules humankind with an iron grip, and has since been seen as a reward and goal to gain. From this fact it is obvious that losing money is a punishment. Idaho’s new agriculture law makes it so those who break it must pay a fee to the person or company they have wronged, the same person or company that torments their animals and serves infected meat. Senate Bill 1337 states, “[...]the court shall require any person convicted, found guilty or who pleads guilty to a violation of this section to make restitution to the victim of the offense [...]. Provided however, that such award shall be in an amount equal to twice the value of the damage resulting from the violation of this section”. The “perpetrators” only crime was to prevent the suffering of innocent beings and stop people from getting possible ailments from diseased meat, yet they’re paying for it (and quite literally so). One of the largest meat recalls in history was caused by ill cows being put in the U.S. food supply. The incident is described in David Brown’s article USDA Orders Largest Meat Recall in U.S. History published in the Washington Post, where Brown says, “The Agriculture Department has ordered the largest meat recall in its history -- 143 million pounds of beef [...] because the company did not prevent ailing animals from entering the U.S. food supply”. He goes on to say the cause of it such a calamity was a video depicting, as the USDA called, “egregious violations” or animal care and sanitary conditions. Imagine if such a video was not made, and that the diseased cattle plagued thousands of people who only wanted a good burger. The symptoms shown by the cows were akin to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), better known as “mad cow disease”. Without the availability of such revealing videos hundreds of people could fall ill and die from the fatal disease. Yet greedy people would argue that it cost the meat company a substantial amount of money and could harm the economy. Those same people would therefore be arguing the welfare of people and animals is less important than money. A law supporting such ideals puts lives at risk and ranks money higher than life itself.
In general it is unjust to punish a hero and praise a villain. It would be like throwing Charles Xavier in jail and giving Magneto a medal. To many people this would seem outrageous, yet that is exactly what is happening to those who try to stop animal cruelty within the agriculture business. The Ag-Gag law states, "A person found guilty of committing the crime of interference with agricultural production shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a term of imprisonment of not more than one (1) year or by a fine not in excess of five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both such fine and imprisonment.” In comparison to the animal cruelty law which states"[...]any person convicted for a first violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall be punished, for each offense, by a jail sentence of not more than six (6) months or by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) or more than five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both such fine and imprisonment"(Title 25 Animals, Sec. 25-3520A). People may argue that the animal rights activists could be costing the company money, laying people off jobs, and wasting the company’s time. However the animals are protected under animal cruelties law and have the right to live a comfortable life. Anyone preventing them from having these rights is both breaking the law and a heartless person. A law should never be created that punishes those who protect the innocent.
The lives of animals may seem meek to those who don’t understand that they can feel pain, and that they have feelings. Making certain images and videos illegal is unconstitutional. Giving punishment to those fighting against evil and fining them into debt isn't morally right. People should therefore have the right to make videos or images of animal cruelty under false pretense if it means ending animal cruelty.