"Idaho is singling out for suppression one mode of speech--audio and video recordings of agricultural operations--to keep controversy and suspect practices out of the public eye," the new ruling said. (Photo: Geshu34/flickr/cc)
"Victory" for Animals as Federal Court Smacks Down Parts of Idaho's Ag-Gag Law
The industry-crafted law was "in large part, targeted at speech and investigative journalists," appeals court found.
A federal appeals court on Thursday struck down key provisions of Idaho's ag-gag law--which criminalizes those who secretly document abuse of animals at agricultural facilities--saying they violate the First Amendment.
The ruling, the result of a lawsuit led by Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), was hailed as a victory for animal rights, workers, and free speech.
Regarding the section of the law criminalizing "misrepresentation" to gain access to a facility, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found "the overbreadth ... staggering," adding "that the purpose of the statute was, in large part, targeted at speech and investigative journalists."
Further, the court said "Idaho is singling out for suppression one mode of speech--audio and video recordings of agricultural operations--to keep controversy and suspect practices out of the public eye."
"We are sensitive to journalists' constitutional right to investigate and publish exposes on the agricultural industry. Matters related to food safety and animal cruelty are of significant public importance," the ruling states.
The court upheld the part of the law that "criminalizes obtaining records of an agricultural production facility by misrepresentation" as well as the section that "criminalizes obtaining employment by misrepresentation with the intent to cause economic or other injury."
According to ALDF, the ruling is a "precedent-setting victory."
Stephen Wells, executive director of the organization, said it "sends a strong message to Idaho and other states with ag-gag laws that they cannot trample civil liberties for the benefit of an industry."
The Center for Food Safety, which was also party to the suit, welcomed the ruling on Twitter:
The law--drafted by dairy industry lobbyists--was passed in 2014 and overturned in 2015 by a federal court. The state then challenged that decision.
As ALDF's Wells stated, similar law exist in other states across the country, and a recent report by Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and Defending Rights & Dissent spotlighted how they "are part of a sweeping crackdown on dissent."
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
A federal appeals court on Thursday struck down key provisions of Idaho's ag-gag law--which criminalizes those who secretly document abuse of animals at agricultural facilities--saying they violate the First Amendment.
The ruling, the result of a lawsuit led by Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), was hailed as a victory for animal rights, workers, and free speech.
Regarding the section of the law criminalizing "misrepresentation" to gain access to a facility, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found "the overbreadth ... staggering," adding "that the purpose of the statute was, in large part, targeted at speech and investigative journalists."
Further, the court said "Idaho is singling out for suppression one mode of speech--audio and video recordings of agricultural operations--to keep controversy and suspect practices out of the public eye."
"We are sensitive to journalists' constitutional right to investigate and publish exposes on the agricultural industry. Matters related to food safety and animal cruelty are of significant public importance," the ruling states.
The court upheld the part of the law that "criminalizes obtaining records of an agricultural production facility by misrepresentation" as well as the section that "criminalizes obtaining employment by misrepresentation with the intent to cause economic or other injury."
According to ALDF, the ruling is a "precedent-setting victory."
Stephen Wells, executive director of the organization, said it "sends a strong message to Idaho and other states with ag-gag laws that they cannot trample civil liberties for the benefit of an industry."
The Center for Food Safety, which was also party to the suit, welcomed the ruling on Twitter:
The law--drafted by dairy industry lobbyists--was passed in 2014 and overturned in 2015 by a federal court. The state then challenged that decision.
As ALDF's Wells stated, similar law exist in other states across the country, and a recent report by Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and Defending Rights & Dissent spotlighted how they "are part of a sweeping crackdown on dissent."
A federal appeals court on Thursday struck down key provisions of Idaho's ag-gag law--which criminalizes those who secretly document abuse of animals at agricultural facilities--saying they violate the First Amendment.
The ruling, the result of a lawsuit led by Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), was hailed as a victory for animal rights, workers, and free speech.
Regarding the section of the law criminalizing "misrepresentation" to gain access to a facility, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found "the overbreadth ... staggering," adding "that the purpose of the statute was, in large part, targeted at speech and investigative journalists."
Further, the court said "Idaho is singling out for suppression one mode of speech--audio and video recordings of agricultural operations--to keep controversy and suspect practices out of the public eye."
"We are sensitive to journalists' constitutional right to investigate and publish exposes on the agricultural industry. Matters related to food safety and animal cruelty are of significant public importance," the ruling states.
The court upheld the part of the law that "criminalizes obtaining records of an agricultural production facility by misrepresentation" as well as the section that "criminalizes obtaining employment by misrepresentation with the intent to cause economic or other injury."
According to ALDF, the ruling is a "precedent-setting victory."
Stephen Wells, executive director of the organization, said it "sends a strong message to Idaho and other states with ag-gag laws that they cannot trample civil liberties for the benefit of an industry."
The Center for Food Safety, which was also party to the suit, welcomed the ruling on Twitter:
The law--drafted by dairy industry lobbyists--was passed in 2014 and overturned in 2015 by a federal court. The state then challenged that decision.
As ALDF's Wells stated, similar law exist in other states across the country, and a recent report by Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and Defending Rights & Dissent spotlighted how they "are part of a sweeping crackdown on dissent."