Proposed farm filming ban ignites debate in Pa.

"(Activists) sensationalize what goes on," Haluska said. "They take video and say, 'Look, this guy's dragging a cow on a chain with a tractor.' Well, there aren't too many ways of moving a cow. ...

Um...are we talking about a live cow? 'Cause, if so, there might just be a few better options.

Here's another article: http://www.care2.com/causes/woman-arrested-for-dastardly-crime-of-filming-a-slaughterhouse.html

A woman stands on the sidewalk and uses her smart phone to record what is happening across the street in broad daylight. Police arrive and charge her with a violation that carries a possible penalty of six months in jail.

It sounds like a story from an oppressive regime in a third-world country, or maybe Arizona. No, this happened in Utah because of the state’s ag-gag law.

The sinister phone-wielder in this case, 25-year-old animal rights activist Amy Meyer, was set to be the first person prosecuted under an ag-gag law.

Meyer went to film the slaughterhouse because she heard that people standing on public property could see into the facility through its barbed-wire fence and, as she put it, “witness the horror of cows struggling for their lives as they were led to their violent deaths.”

Ag-Gag Laws

Ag-gag laws are meant to help factory farms and related businesses keep the secret of how they abuse animals. Several states have them (Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, Iowa, and Missouri) , and many other states are considering adopting similar laws (Arkansas, Nebraska, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wyoming). Generally they criminalize photographing or recording the goings-on at factory farms, even if you aren’t trespassing or hiding your activities.

These laws are a defense against more investigations like the numerous recent operations that disclosed evidence of shocking cruelty and other legal violations by Big Ag. The resulting scandals led to plant closures and product recalls. It’s no wonder that agribusiness wants to silence people who reveal their gruesome secrets: the consequences hit them in their wallets. None of them want to see a plant close because of one intrepid worker with a hidden camera.

The fact that legislators pass these laws (some of them — others have rejected ag-gag bills) proves how deep they are in Big Ag’s pockets. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the laws are “flagrant violations of the First Amendment.” It seems pretty obvious why.

The Videographer: Amy Meyer

Meyer committed her dastardly deed of standing on a public sidewalk and pointing her phone camera on February 8th; 11 days later prosecutors filed a charge of misdemeanor agricultural operation interference against her. (How could she interfere by standing quietly across the street?)

Her story ends well: after she pleaded not guilty, Utah dropped its charge against her. Authorities kept her on the hook for two months before dismissing the charge, and could bring it again, though that seems unlikely — it appears that Utah officials were reacting to an avalanche of bad publicity (the story crashed reddit.com’s front page for an hour) when they dropped the charge, and wouldn’t welcome a second publicity dump.

The charge’s dismissal was a particularly lucky break for Meyer because the slaughterhouse she taped, the Dale T. Smith and Sons Meatpacking Company, is owned by the town’s mayor, Darrell H. Smith — who also happens to be responsible for appointing the local judges. Yikes.

The public statement Meyer delivered suggests that she is not going to change her commitment to animal rights.

What I saw was upsetting, to say the least. Cows being led inside the building struggled to turn around once they smelled and heard the misery that awaited them inside. I saw piles of horns scattered around the property and flesh being spewed from a chute on the side of the building. I also witnessed what I believe to be a clear act of cruelty to animals – a live cow who appeared to be sick or injured being carried away from the building in a tractor, as though she were nothing more than rubble.

At all times while I documented this cruelty, I remained on public property. I never once crossed the barbed wire fence that exists to demarcate private and public property. I told this to the police who were on the scene.

I am shocked and disappointed that I am being prosecuted by Draper City simply for standing on public property and documenting horrific animal abuse while those who perpetrated these acts are free to continue maiming and killing animals.

Now Meyer won’t be prosecuted, but whether the slaughterhouse will be able to continue business as usual is an open question.

Related Stories:

California and Indiana Kill Ag-Gag Bills, But the Fight’s Not Over

More States Want to Punish People Reporting Animal Abuse

If Your Report of Animal Abuse Isn’t Good Enough, You’ll Be Charged

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/woman-arrested-for-dastardly-crime-of-filming-a-slaughterhouse.html#ixzz2T2AAIWK1

One more ag-gag bill bites the dust! Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam vetoed the bill after the state legislature passed it, protecting his state from travesties like the silliness that happened in Utah, where a woman almost went to jail for standing on a public sidewalk and recording what was plainly visible at the slaughterhouse across the street. Utah eventually dropped the charges against her.

51,000 Care2 members have signed our petition against ag-gag laws. We have already helped kill bills in California and Indiana, as I’ve written here. We have momentum on our side.

We have many others on our side as well. A number of prominent Tennessee residents opposed the bill, including “300 Tennessee clergy, Priscilla Presley, singers Carrie Underwood and Emmylou Harris, and Miss Tennessee USA 2013.”

In addition, “animal protection groups, First Amendment advocates and newspaper editorial boards across Tennessee opposed the bill, which would criminalize undercover investigations at agribusiness operations and stables.” It would also “require intentional documentation of animal abuse be handed over to law enforcement within 48 hours.”

Governor Haslam explained his veto: “First, the Attorney General says the law is constitutionally suspect. Second, it appears to repeal parts of Tennessee’s Shield Law without saying so….Third, there are concerns from some district attorneys that the act actually makes it more difficult to prosecute animal cruelty cases, which would be an unintended consequence.” (Making it more difficult to prosecute animal cruelty cases is exactly the intended consequence, but I’m sure Haslam had his reasons for failing to say so.)

The “Shield Law” that Haslam referred to is a Tennessee free speech protection “which protects journalists’ ability to collect information.” Ag-gag laws are meant to do the opposite: protect information’s ability to remain secret, when that information is about animal torture in agricultural businesses.

Unfortunately, Haslam signaled that this battle may not be over. He suggested that the legislature should continue studying the issue and pass a clearer bill. Whatever he meant by “clearer,” it probably wasn’t “more anti-cruelty” or “more pro-animal” or “saner.”

The Humane Society of the United States, which played a central role in the battle against the Tennessee bill, reports that “of the 11 states that have introduced such ag-gag legislation in 2013, none have passed it” — so far. Keep speaking out, signing the petition, contacting your state legislators and generally raising hell — especially if your state is showing signs of considering ag-gag legislation. Don’t let them trample the First Amendment, and don’t let them protect the horrors of factory farming and other animal abuse — like soring Tennessee walking horses — by keeping the public in the dark.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/one-more-ag-gag-bill-bites-the-dust.html#ixzz2THCn1egy

But you can still commit murder in the V.I. and get away with it. Go figure.:S

I think we should film slaughter houses, people should know where their food comes from.

Maybe make little movie previews for meals at mcdonalds or your favorite place to eat.

"Ahh, I see you've chosen the chicken tonight, excellent choice! Now please watch this short film while your dinner is cooked"

*chicken runs around with head cut off*

the gag laws are silly, but then animal RIGHTS activists are RETARDED & lack the basic grammar understanding to even comprehend what the word "rights" entails.

So I guess I'm not sure which side of this fence I fall on.

the gag laws are silly, but then animal RIGHTS activists are RETARDED & lack the basic grammar understanding to even comprehend what the word "rights" entails.

Can you elaborate? What does the word "rights" entail (or not entail) when used in reference to animals?

"This we know: the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. All things are connected like blood that unites us all. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself."
--Chief Seattle, Native American.

the gag laws are silly, but then animal RIGHTS activists are RETARDED & lack the basic grammar understanding to even comprehend what the word "rights" entails.

Can you elaborate? What does the word "rights" entail (or not entail) when used in reference to animals?

in brief:

the animal rights movement attempts to give animals rights that are equal to humans (and have legal implications etc). I do not support this at all, it is an extreme emotionally motivated movement that is not well thought out & causes serious issues with humanity.

I DO support the animal welfare movement, animals should be treated with the respect due to them & even when harvested for food they should not have to suffer or be treated in cruel / mean ways (of course that begs definition, but that is another topic entirely).

This quote sums it up nicely:

"This we know: the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. All things are connected like blood that unites us all. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself."
--Chief Seattle, Native American.

Everything is connected & we should treat everything that way, intent is key, action follows intent.

When Native American tribes in the US hunted buffalo they did not do it out of malice or even really sport, they did it out of respect for the animal and it's gifts to the people of their tribe, they used every piece of the animal & did the best to make their kills efficiently.

Their intent was good; the buffalo was respected for what it was.

Ahh, I understand now. I hadn't given much thought to this animal "rights" movement, and thus equated the phrase with welfare than the more legal definition. After reading about it, I am generally not for "animal rights", however, for some species, especially highly intelligent ones like dolphins, bonobos, chimps, perhaps elephants, I am open to debate. I think there should be some limitations on what we are able to do to these animals. I don't believe many of them should be in captivity purely for entertainment, and thus I don't think humans should have ultimate property rights over them. Domestic animals like dogs and sheep are obviously a different story.