Animal Rights

Stossel: No Filming on Farms

Farm groups get politicians to pass laws against secret filming on farms.

|

HD Download

Hundreds of animal rights activists have sneaked onto farms to do hidden-camera investigations. They often expose animal abuse.

Their videos led companies like Walmart and Wendy's to impose stricter animal welfare requirements on companies that sell them meat.

Of course, farm groups don't like the secret recordings. Kay Johnson Smith of the Animal Agriculture Alliance tells John Stossel that the videos often mislead consumers into thinking farm conditions are worse than they are. She accuses activists of "stalking farms to try to capture something that the public doesn't understand."

Her group and others push state politicians to pass so-called "ag-gag" laws that make it a crime to mislead in order to get a job on a farm. (That's often how activists get on farms to film.)

"We call it farm protection," says Johnson Smith.

Stossel asks: "What about everybody else? Why do you get special protection?"

She responds: "The agricultural community is the only business community that this sort of tactic is really being used on right now."

Stossel pushes back: "I'm an investigative reporter. I can't do my job if there are laws that prevent me from showing things. Nobody believes it if you don't see it."

"These activist groups want to eliminate all of animal agriculture," Johnson Smith replies.

Some activists do want to stop people from eating meat. But many of their undercover investigations show real animal abuse. Some have led to convictions of abusive farm workers.

"These groups are exposing issues that are happening," Stossel points out.

"If they really cared about animals," says Johnson Smith, "they would stop [the abuse] right then. Instead, they go weeks and months without reporting anything to the farm owners [because] they want to make their sensational video!"

The Agricultural Alliance now pushes for laws that would force activists to report abuse quickly. But that would kill investigations before they can document much, explains Amanda Howell of the Animal Legal Defense Foundation.

One has to film for multiple days, Howell notes. Otherwise, "a company can say, 'This is a one-off!'"

Johnson Smith replies, "There are bad apples in every industry, but 99.9 percent of farmers do the right thing every single day….Farming isn't always pretty."

Howell says that the only way for the public to learn the truth is if undercover investigations are allowed. "We should all be worried when corporations are supporting laws that impinge our right to free speech."

Stossel agrees. "Whatever you thinks of the activists, and I have problems with many of them, government shouldn't pass special laws that prevent people from revealing what's true."

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel; his independent production company, Stossel Productions; and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason.

NEXT: EU Data Privacy Fines Are Getting Steep. Will This Be the New Normal?

HD Download

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. These groups believe any use of animals for food is abuse. Producing meat is messy. There are abuses. I still have a problem with people commiting fraud or trespassing on someone’s land and business to advance their agenda.. Many of these videos have been shown to be staged. You also get one side on a story with out any independent verification.

    1. Bullshit. Producing meat doesn’t have to be cruel. Raising a pig in a pen so small the pig can’t even turn around is fucking cruel. If you are ok with that, you got issues.

      1. How about veal dummy? Veal is tastier when the calf does not move much.

        You people make me laugh. Good thing America is so rich that you don’t even have to slaughter, butcher, or harvest your own food.

        All the plants that you eat are suffering and we just don’t understand the plant language.

      2. The one thing we know with 100% certainty is that Amanda Howell, the lawyer for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, doesn’t want to tell us the truth about the ALDF (and her personal) motives. @3:58.
        Stossel scored BIG on that question.

    2. Years ago one of the weekly televised news shows did an expose on a local supermarket chain with one of their claims in the story that the meat saw in the butcher shop was not cleaned at the end of the day (the video of it was just nasty looking). Of course when the supermarket sued it was revealed, in the local papers but not nationwide, that the person who was supposed to clean the saw was the undercover reporter who had filmed it. Someone who gets a job with a hidden agenda has all sorts of opportunities for mischief.

      1. Having watched these videos the aggag law is supposed to prevent. They are often staged as well. Purposely putting animals in machines wrongs so that they will be hurt and the machine doesn’t function as it should. Shit like that. I’m not sure what the solution is.

        1. If it’s a setup, then it’s defamation, and the farmers should sue for Billions.

  2. If these PETA dipshits are sneaking onto private land, then that is trespassing. A lot of this happens in states that do not protect the right of landowners to shoot trespassers.

    In the end, these videos show how animals are fattened up and are slaughtered for their meat. If you are a meat eater, an animal dies every time so you can have meat. If you meat and you cannot handle that, then don’t eat meat.

    These PETA freaks are not convincing Americans to stop eating meat.

    As for ‘animal cruelty’ claims, many states consider animal property and I was never clear on how you can be cruel to your own property. Having animals ‘suffer’ while they are alive and before the slaughter is a shitty thing to do but who is to say how much animals actually suffer. Nature can be very ‘cruel’ to animals.

    It’s gotta hurt when a predator is eating you alive. It’s not ‘cruel’ though.

    1. It’s gotta hurt when a predator is eating you alive. It’s not ‘cruel’ though.

      Something on the order of 5-10% of piglets born in any given sow barn are crushed by their own mother. Remember the shark panics of the last couple of years? Cows routinely kill more people every year; but they’re mostly backwards-thinking, disaffected Trump voters lamenting that they’re underserved by their government so fuck ’em.

      If you think cruelty in slaughter is terrible, you’ve never seen a pack animal, worked well past its prime, contract a disease.

      1. “Something on the order of 5-10% of piglets born in any given sow barn are crushed by their own mother. ”

        I wonder how that compares with feral hogs in the wild.

        1. I wonder how that compares with feral hogs in the wild.

          There is literally and figuratively no comparison. It’s like “feral” humans having a half dozen kids hoping 1-2 survive (Lincoln?) compared to post-industrial parents controlling the number of offspring they have because the survival rate is > 95%. Hogs in the wild don’t necessarily get crushed as often because predators carry them off.

      2. That’s because the poor mother doesn’t have enough space not to crush her own offspring. That’s fucked up.

        1. That could be one reason but there are other reasons.

        2. That’s because the poor mother doesn’t have enough space not to crush her own offspring.

          No, in fact it’s the opposite. A 10% loss on piglets conceptually represents a pretty straightforward 10% cut to the bottom line; the sow is restrained because it’s not unusual for free roaming/nursing sows to crush 50% of a litter or more.

      3. We used to have ducks and even with plenty of space, the mother would purposefully sit on them to determine strength. We lost at least 4 ducklings in a group of 10 that way. The others died because ducks are stupid.

    2. “”If these PETA dipshits are sneaking onto private land, then that is trespassing.”‘

      Yes. However, the article states that they are getting jobs on the farm and recording.

      1. You’re brave to read these entire crappy articles.

        I only addressed the trespassing issue because I am not sure how non-government employers can 100% stop an employee from filming.

        1. Well, the trespassing was the first thing that came to my mind. But I wanted to read some of the article to see if that was or was not the case.

          1. You’re right and thanks for adding that.

            Banning videoing is just stupid and wont do nearly as much as simply not giving the PETA people any attention.

            Plus, screen farm workers better.

        2. […] because I am not sure how non-government employers can 100% stop an employee from filming.

          Because you’re unfamiliar with Ag-gag laws.

          These laws criminalize whistle-blowers.

          1. ‘Whistle-blower’ is a generous use of the term.

            We’re used to ‘Whistle-blowers who work in government for years and see something unconstitutional or illegal and expose it.

            These PETA SJWs are trying to get jobs on farms and then videoing the farm or even setting up a cruel situation for the animals and then videoing that.

            Pay attention to the motive. The PETA motive is to get people to stop eating animals by any means necessary. Nothing illegal is necessarily going on at the targeted farms. Whistle-blowers tend to want to get the employer to stop doing something illegal.

            1. LOL… “Whistle-blower”? That kid kicked by dog when it started chasing there cat……. I’m gonna “whistle-blow” on that kid.

    3. The same people that decry animal rights activists will turn around and use the exact same language and appeals to emotion when arguing against abortion. I was always struck with how similar the motivations and tactics of pro-lifers and animal rights activists are. Yet they are bitter enemies, politically.

      1. I for one cannot wait to taste the fetus McRib.

        1. In a recent marketing ploy, the Foetus McRib was renamed “Stroopwafel McFlurry from the Netherlands”.

  3. Is the law preventing reporters from showing things, or making it illegal for them to fraudulently represent themselves in order get something to show?

    What is the proper balance between press freedom and fraud?

    1. And property rights.

      1. That too.

        I am uncomfortable with suppression of free speech, but I am also uncomfortable with reporters assertions that their tactics available to them to get a story are unlimited, else suppression of the press.

        1. The most irritating fucking thing about it? It’s a farm. It’s a place where they proudly announce that animals are grown and converted to food. There’s no mystery. Everybody knows how foie gras and kobe beef is made. I like most farm dwellers, learned first hand before starting second or third grade. Go to any shithole around the world and they’ll be slaughtering the same animals in much less sanitary and humane ways.

          But any hack journolist can phone the same paper hanger who got them a fake ID when they were underage looking to buy alcohol and do some ‘real investigative journalism’. Nevermind places like the FBI or the NSA where investigative journalism would be an actual fucking feat and even the people running the joint have no fucking idea what’s going on. It would take real balls, brains, heart, and backbone to be an investigative journalist in places like that.

          1. There are rich country problems that are not really problems.

            They actually send people to prison for ‘animal cruelty’ as the judge, jury, prosecutor, audience, and jailers probably all eat meat.

  4. John’s wrong on this one. Lying to get a job is dishonest. Just because you own a camera doesn’t mean you have a right to lie to an employer and record footage on their property any more than you could lie to a woman to get her clothes off and secretly record her naked. That the media don’t recognize this as craven scumbaggery speaks volumes about them. If you want to perform an investigation, get a warrant. Otherwise, run the risk of getting convicted for fraud and having gag orders imposed on you. Other than that, go fuck yourself.

    In a recent case, there’s evidence that the ‘undercover reporter’ coerced employees (some of whom were illegal immigrants) to perform the abuse. Just as not every badge makes any given dipshit wearing it a hero, not every camera makes any given dipshit pointing it virtuous. Scumbags use cameras too and people defending their private property is not something libertarians should frown on.

    1. ” Lying to get a job is dishonest.”

      Do you want job interviews for slaughter house positions to be held under oath before witnesses and a judge?

    2. Otherwise, run the risk of getting convicted for fraud and having gag orders imposed on you.

      If anti-farm activists were just lying about what goes on farms, this wouldn’t be an issue. The issue is when they’re telling the truth about what goes on at a farm. That it’s a truth means the companies can’t sue them for libel.

      Or did you mean the “fraud” of lying to get the job? In that case, sure, “convict” ’em. Meaning, “fire” them. For 99% of jobs lying in an interview isn’t a criminal action. Making farms a special place in that regard is out-of-line.

      1. The issue is when they’re telling the truth about what goes on at a farm.

        The issue is when they’re telling a “truth” that’s disparate or disconnected from the narrative built and sold by the modern education system and fellow journolists where “meat” magically, safely winds up in grocery store shelves and everyone lives happily ever after.

  5. “If they really cared about animals,” says Johnson Smith, “they would stop [the abuse] right then. Instead, they go weeks and months without reporting anything to the farm owners [because] they want to make their sensational video!”

    The Agricultural Alliance now pushes for laws that would force activists to report abuse quickly. But that would kill investigations before they can document much, explains Amanda Howell of the Animal Legal Defense Foundation.

    So it’s okay to let animals be abused–if it’s being done to pursue a loftier goal.

    Huh.

    Which is a loftier goal? Feeding hungry people–or whining on TV about people eating things you believe shouldn’t be eaten?

  6. I see nothing wrong with a private organization banning filming on their property, farm or otherwise. It doesn’t violate anyone’s free speech or press rights.

    Film in certain government buildings without permission, and you’ll be in jail for a long time.

    1. I think these laws go way beyond that. There are already laws against trespassing.

      1. They do go beyond that. They prohibit taking a job under a false pretense.

  7. Stossel pushes back: “I’m an investigative reporter. I can’t do my job if there are laws that prevent me from trespassing, violating personal privacy, selectively editing, and pushing an agenda before there is any chance of a due process defense. Nobody believes it if you don’t see it.”
    Fixed it.
    A free press is not the same as a blanket exemption for some citizens from the criminal and civil justice systems.
    How about a constitutional amendment clarifying the public’s ‘right to know’ begins after the guilty verdict?

  8. The Agricultural Alliance now pushes for laws that would force activists to report abuse quickly. But that would kill investigations before they can document much, explains Amanda Howell of the Animal Legal Defense Foundation.

    So, whether the abuse is there or not, they want it to be there. On top of that, they want it not just to be there, but to be chronic or systemic. Then, on top of that, they want a priori protection to surreptitiously document it as being chronic?

    John, they’re literally and pretty blatantly asking for legal protection of their narrative. There’s nothing that says that they have to stop filming in order to stop the abuse and, if the problem really is widespread or chronic, there should be plenty of footage of them stopping lots of abuse.

    If you were defending some whistleblowers, I might understand, but you’re defending people crafting a narrative. Might as well go back to trying to scare us about pink slime.

    1. “but you’re defending people crafting a narrative.”

      Since when is crafting a narrative indefensible? A narrative helps people to frame and understand a story. In this case a story about animal abuse.

      1. Since when is crafting a narrative indefensible? A narrative helps people to frame and understand a story. In this case a story about animal abuse.

        Legally protecting the manufacture of a false narrative is deplorable. I would think someone who so adamantly rails against GMOs would understand the idea. Unless they didn’t have an ounce of scruples or lacked the intellectual capacity to find their own ass with two hands.

        1. “Legally protecting the manufacture of a false narrative is deplorable.”

          What false narratives are being legally protected? That the animals we eat are sometimes subjected to abuse? You’re not making yourself very clear on the issue.

  9. The real issue is the lack of penalties for falsifying, staging and outright lying in regards to a news story.

    “Animal abuse” stories are always the product of activists and activists frequently lie. The fact that many of these same activists are mentally ill and/or fanatics only makes the situation worse.

    Ultimately, without actually penalties for lying the “press” is essentially incentivized to lie as sensational stories sell.

    US libel laws are essentially useless and any meaningful reform would limit the investigative process to some degree. I don’t know what the right answer is, but I find the activists so dishonest, based off of personal experience, that something has to change.

    1. ““Animal abuse” stories are always the product of activists and activists frequently lie.”

      Sometime they don’t lie, though. Banning farm filming would punish those honest activists and leave the public to stew in the fetid juices of their own ignorance.

      1. That’s not the issue.

        The issue is that no penalty exists for lying/fabricating a story.

        As a result, the lack of concrete penalties for making shit up essentially incentivizes people to lie about it.

        It is not helped by the fact that the “reporters” are highly biased activists who are ideologically inclined to lie/fabricate/exaggerate about the situation at hand to support their position.

        Banning farm filming is a knee jerk reaction to the fact that no method exists to punish people who fabricate stories about farming.

        1. “As a result, the lack of concrete penalties for making shit up essentially incentivizes people to lie about it.”

          Isn’t making defamatory claims about people, even farmers, actionable?

          1. In theory, yes.

            In practice, no. Look at all of these academic lawsuits involving Title IX cases. It took a good decade of people being railroaded out of school to even start to address the issue.

            Proving defamation/libel to the degree you can get a settlement is even more difficult.

            And that is the root problem.

            1. “Proving defamation/libel to the degree you can get a settlement is even more difficult.”

              I’m not sure your solution, criminalizing the misleading of slaughter house employers is going to make justice any faster or easier. Isn’t there a market solution to the issue? Libertarians prefer that to the jack-booted thugs that you are relying on.

  10. There are bad actors on both sides. Shocking, I know. Perhaps the best idea is to give neither any type of preferential treatment, much less enshrining that favoritism into law. We already have laws regarding fraud and defamation.

    And cut Stossel some slack. Don’t you have slow days at the office?

    1. There are bad actors on both sides.

      Except the hierarchy is:
      Food
      Freedom
      Journalism

      Maybe you’ve got some principles or an abundance of food and it’s:
      Freedom
      Food
      Journalism

      Either way, journalism is the product of food and freedom, not the other way around. The Soviet Union didn’t rise to power for lack of investigative journalism. Moreover, it’s not like these oppressive agricultural magnates are denying anyone food, silencing all reporting on food production, or even most reporting, or even really being unreasonable in their expectation that potential hires not lie and that journalists report shit rather than craft a narrative.

      I understand you don’t hit a home run every at bat, but when you’re scoring an own goal, you should be reprimanded.

      1. Luckily we do have an abundance of food in our country, and consumers can make balanced decisions based on need and principle if they like. I know that many so called cases of animal cruelty have more to do with consumer naivety surrounding the production of the food they eat, but I also know that there are times when the line gets crossed into real torture and cruelty. Who’s to say where that line is drawn? Ideally it’s the consumer, which means that someone will have the job of investigating and reporting on food producers because the free market deems that information of value, therefore I see no purpose or benefit to the ag-gag laws referenced in video.

        1. Ideally it’s the consumer, which means that someone will have the job of investigating and reporting on food producers because the free market deems that information of value,

          Yes. Consumers are too stupid to find out for themselves or simply choose alternatives for alternatives’ sake. Producers are always to cravenly crooked to provide honest insight and input into their production methods. Without journolists no one would know anything about anything. Journolism isn’t just a human right, it’s a human necessity!

            1. Nice strawman

              Well, the idea that farms are the only employers where employees aren’t allowed to capture video of their surroundings or that the employees’ rights generally should/do trump employers’ rights is itself a straw man.

              Even with the ag-gag laws, journalists are free to investigate. They just aren’t free to misrepresent themselves. It would be great if normal fraud standards could be applied, cases adjudicated, and remunerations enacted. Unfortunately, many of those standards are whimsically high, seldom enforced, and assume and equanimity on the part of employers and employees to do fiscal damage to one another. The current standards for fraud rather overtly facilitate hucksterism and yellow journalism.

              Moreover, the point that you whimsically dismiss is that the FF enshrined the freedom of speech and the *p*ress, not the *P*ress. An ‘investigative journalist’ may’ve been found to have served the public good but that doesn’t exculpate them or obviate the crime.

              1. You’re defending more laws (and therefore more government), whereas I’m suggesting we use the laws we already have and let the market sort out the rest.

                I’ll reiterate, you’re defending more government. Think about that.

              2. “They just aren’t free to misrepresent themselves. ”

                Journalists surely do this all the time. So do salesmen, police, and job applicants in general. Criminalizing them seems a strange measure for Libertarians to support. For once, I agree with Stossel.

  11. Let’s be adults here:

    1. Abusing animals is wrong. Not gonna define “abuse” right now, but there is a point we all agree with this.
    2. Animals have no rights. None. At all. They are property (or wild on unclaimed land). Ergo, animal abuse ought not be a State issue.
    3. Property rights are a thing. Trespassing is bad. Fraud is bad.
    4. If a company abuses animals, it’s the right of their customers to take their business elsewhere.
    5. Lobbying government to give you special privileges no-one else has is bad.

    So, in reality, both sides are wrong. Remember, in a conflict such as this, it’s very likely both sides are wrong.

    1. Even Walter Bloch admits that libertarian theory is weak when it comes to animal abuse. Everyone agrees it’s wrong, yet there is no basis in libertarian theory to make it illegal.

      1. What is the libertarian objection to animal rights?

        1. Animals cannot have rights in the human sense of the word as they are utterly incapable of taking responsibility for their actions.

          1. “Animals cannot have rights in the human sense of the word as they are utterly incapable of taking responsibility for their actions.”

            But it’s possible to hold an animal responsible for its own actions. The dog that bites may be put down by the master. So, animals do have ‘duties’ in that respect, to be expected to act in certain ways and be punished if they break the rules. If the animal has duties, it then has rights, them both being two sides of the same coin…

            I object to your formulation because it seems to justify inflicting suffering on an animal because it isn’t as intellectually gifted as a human. This seems arbitrary and morally dubious to me.

            1. If the animal has duties, it then has rights, them both being two sides of the same coin…

              1. They aren’t both sides of the same coin.
              2. The animal doesn’t have duties. Per your own writing, they have ” ‘duties’ “.

              If the animal has ‘duties’, it then has ‘rights’, them both being two ‘sides’ of the same ‘coin’…

              1. So animals don’t have rights. They are not as clever as humans are. Does that mean we can abuse them (provided they are our property) or is there another reason why we shouldn’t abuse animals.

                1. It all depends doesn’t it? What would your gut reaction be to seeing someone beat a puppy with a hammer? Would you recoil in disgust? Would that inform your opinion of the person beating the puppy?

                  My unscientific opinion is that an animal’s pain and suffering can be a proxy for human pain and suffering, and in the example given, an observer might infer that the person beating the puppy lacks any sort of basic empathy and may choose to disassociate from that person as a result.

                  1. “What would your gut reaction be to seeing someone beat a puppy with a hammer? ”

                    I would say it’s wrong. For me the rights of the hammer wielder or the puppy don’t enter the picture.

        2. Animals have no agency to enforce their own ‘rights’.

          We used to go by making sure animals didn’t suffer more than necessary to turn them into food. Give them food and water, so they dont starve before you put a bullet in their head and butcher them.

          1. “Animals have no agency to enforce their own ‘rights’.”

            There are also humans without the agency. Many argue that babies in the womb are like this, helpless, unable to launch court proceedings etc. Lack of agency doesn’t seem to be as important as you think it is.

            Is it wrong to abuse animals? Most here seem to agree that it is. But why? I don’t think there’s any Christian grounds against it. Nor apparently are there any libertarian grounds. So, what’s the reason?

            1. The Bible and Koran discuss approved ways of dealing with animals, especially when slaughtering them.

              Most farmers don’t ‘abuse’ animals mainly because they want to get good returns on their investments. Animals abused can sometimes cost their owners a lot with less animal weight, less milk, less offspring, etc.

              1. “The Bible and Koran discuss approved ways of dealing with animals, especially when slaughtering them.”

                That’s my point. Hindu and Buddhist texts discuss the importance of animals and their sacredness in ways that monotheistic religions don’t. For example vegetarianism is practiced by 7 day adventists, but I don’t know any other Christian faction. Vegetarianism is much more common in eastern faiths.

                Farmers are incentivized to overcrowd animals. This is a form of abuse.

            2. Exodus 23:12 – Let your animals rest
              Proverbs 12:10 – Righteous people care for their animals
              Exodus 23:5 – Help beasts of burden
              Deuteronomy 25:4 – Let animals eat while they work
              Proverbs 27:23 – Keep your animals in good condition
              Isaiah 66:3 – Apparently breaking a dog’s neck is bad, too
              Isaiah 32:20 – It’s good to let your animals roam free when you can

              Wow, I just learned most of these today. Also, there are many, many others.

          2. We used to go by making sure animals didn’t suffer more than necessary to turn them into food.

            Who’s we?

      2. What is a violation of NAP is a subset of what is wrong. The theory of libertarianism isn’t concerned with all things that are wrong, it’s concerned with how humans should deal with each other in terms of initiations of force against other humans, and what justice (repayment) looks like.

  12. There should be no filming on farms unless it involves pigs and cows having sex.
    No chickens.
    No donkeys.
    No horses.
    Just pigs and cows having sex.
    Art does have its limitations.

  13. Secretly filming? I can think of a way to pit such ag-gag laws against the Americans with Disabilities act. It’s actually very simple.

    There are people who use the technology that went into products like Google Glass as a corrective device for poor vision. Some vision conditions can’t use eye surgery or even eyeglasses, but can see with Google Glass.

    Some people who can use regular corrective lenses or don’t even need glasses at all use Google Glass and similar products just because they’re useful and convenient. And all of those products use a camera that is constantly recording to do what they do.

    So send someone wearing such a device to a farm, and watch the fireworks erupt. If a state statute is in direct conflict with a federal statute, the state statute loses. If violating a federal law comes with prison time, then arguing that you were obeying a state law that violates that federal law won’t save you from prison.

    The intersection of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Violation of Rights under Color of Law statutes (18 USC 241 & 242) have exactly that effect!

  14. “to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, effects” is not limited to intrusioin from government. It must include from any unwanted source. If some dweeb is on MY property rolling tape, and they document something, and that documentation ends up in the hands of government who then come and charge me criminally, THAT is a breach of the search and seizure clause…..even though it was not gummit who entered my place and did the documentation, the end result is that gummit gets hold of it and uses it for ill toward me.

    NO recording on private property without knowledge/permission from the owner. The record has clearly demonstrated that such recording can, and likely well, be used to my harm.

  15. How about veal dummy? Veal is tastier when the calf does not move much.You people make me laugh. Good thing America is so rich that you don’t even have to slaughter, butcher, or harvest your own food.
    All the plants that you eat are suffering and we just don’t understand the plant language.
    Meja Makan Mewah

  16. In most instances, the need for protection equates to the level of wrong-doing. Farms=food=the possibility of controlling health through the use of food=big profits for the food, farming, and (medical) pharma industries. How else to ensure a stead lifetime job?

  17. Isn’t it odd how billions of upon billions of city companies are entirely fenced in, have security personnel and security gates. Will sue instantly on any public release of their “how we do it” ways.

    Then we have wide-open farms. Many of which are actually “residential” properties. And a whole slew of whack-jobs posting public videos of inside the “bedroom” window and claiming they have a so called “right” to “investigate” someone else’s PRIVATE PROPERTY. “How dare Mr. Johnson play with himself and actually serve food the next day”, they CRY. We cannot “investigate” these horrible acts if we cannot pry into everyone’s bedroom window.

    Just as it is so with city corporations – If one believes there is a crime being committed on private property they need to contact authorities who will investigate or get a warrant. That’s the difference between private/public. Throwing private property rights under the bus is the very definition of a totalitarian communist society.

  18. Some people who can use regular corrective lenses or don’t even need glasses at all use Google Glass and similar products just because they’re useful and convenient. And all of those products use a camera that is constantly recording to do what they do.

    So send someone wearing such a device to a farm, and watch the fireworks erupt. If a state statute is in direct conflict with a federal statute, the state statute loses. If violating a federal law comes with prison time, then arguing that you were obeying a state law that violates that federal law won’t save you from prison.

    The intersection of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Violation of Rights under Color of Law statutes (18 USC 241 & 242) have exactly that effect!9xmovies

Please to post comments