"Ag-gag" is the term critics apply to state laws designed to prevent surreptitious recording of activities involving animal agriculture. Utah's law contradicts First Amendment rights and interferes with protection of U.S. food sources, 16 journalism organizations argued in a brief filed in federal court in Salt Lake City.
"The controversial law says, 'A person is guilty of agricultural operation interference if the person records an image of, or sound from, an agricultural operation under certain circumstances, obtains access to an agricultural operation under false pretenses, or obtains employment at an agricultural operation under certain circumstances with the intent to record an image of, or sound from, the agricultural operation'," Troy Wilde reports for Public News Service.
Gregg Leslie, legal-defense director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told Wilde that the law makes it nearly impossible to expose possible cruelty and abuse. "It also affects journalists when the people who want to act as their sources when their conduct is criminalized," he said. "People have a right to know how food is handled, how animals are treated in slaughterhouses and in any other kind of facility."
The brief argues, "Journalists and organizations that conduct investigations into meat-processing facilities have long been credited with advancing the safety of the meat the public consumes. Federal inspection has drastically improved the safety of the meat in the past century, but problems within the inspection system leave a gap in food safety that journalists and animal rights organizations have filled. While no journalist has the right to trespass on private property, the overbreadth of the Utah statue poses a substantial risk of criminalizing lawful—and constitutionally protected—newsgathering activity," according to a news release from the Reporters Committee.
The plaintiffs for the case are the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Animal Legal Defense Fund.
"The controversial law says, 'A person is guilty of agricultural operation interference if the person records an image of, or sound from, an agricultural operation under certain circumstances, obtains access to an agricultural operation under false pretenses, or obtains employment at an agricultural operation under certain circumstances with the intent to record an image of, or sound from, the agricultural operation'," Troy Wilde reports for Public News Service.
Gregg Leslie, legal-defense director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told Wilde that the law makes it nearly impossible to expose possible cruelty and abuse. "It also affects journalists when the people who want to act as their sources when their conduct is criminalized," he said. "People have a right to know how food is handled, how animals are treated in slaughterhouses and in any other kind of facility."
The brief argues, "Journalists and organizations that conduct investigations into meat-processing facilities have long been credited with advancing the safety of the meat the public consumes. Federal inspection has drastically improved the safety of the meat in the past century, but problems within the inspection system leave a gap in food safety that journalists and animal rights organizations have filled. While no journalist has the right to trespass on private property, the overbreadth of the Utah statue poses a substantial risk of criminalizing lawful—and constitutionally protected—newsgathering activity," according to a news release from the Reporters Committee.
The plaintiffs for the case are the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Animal Legal Defense Fund.
No comments:
Post a Comment