Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Iowa Rejects Video Privacy Protection For Cows

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the emootional-distress dept.

Privacy 256

Hugh Pickens writes "The Seattle Post Intelligencer reports that an effort to outlaw the undercover recording of animal abuse in livestock operations appears to have stalled in Iowa after previously failing in Minnesota, Florida and New York, with the pushback coming from citizens and activists complaining that the proposals were aimed at protecting an industry that doesn't exhibit enough concern for farm animal welfare. A bill introduced earlier this year to criminalize the actions of activists who make unauthorized hidden videos of animal abuse appeared to be headed for approval in the Iowa Legislature, with proposed penalties including fines of up to $7,500 and up to five years in prison. 'I feel it is wrong to absolutely lie to get a job to try to defame the employer,' says Iowa representative Annette Sweeney, a farmer and Republican legislator who sponsored the bill. But District Attorney James R. Horton, who filed animal cruelty charges against employees and the owner of a large-scale calf-raising farm, says he probably 'wouldn't have a case' if not for covert video provided by an animal protection group, and that 'we wouldn't have anything' in terms of evidence against the suspects in the beating deaths of dairy calves at E6 Cattle Co."

cancel ×

256 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

However - if they have video evidence - defame ? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469324)

I wonder though - if they have good video evidence. Is it really defamation ?
 

Re:However - if they have video evidence - defame (4, Insightful)

speedplane (552872) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469438)

Iowa already has defamation laws. So if it really were defamation, they could already sue the activists. They don't need any new laws.

Re:However - if they have video evidence - defame (2)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470290)

Defamation only works if the evidence isn't true, just like libel. If they dead beat animals to death, it's the truth, not a de-faming of the accused.

Litigation to sue the activists would certainly fail, unless it was contrived or staged. If it wasn't, then animal cruelty charges apply and I hope they stick.

Re:However - if they have video evidence - defame (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469822)

No it's not.

I live in Iowa, and wrote my legislators about this, very angry, when I first heard about it. It's ridiculous.

The legal line of reasoning goes like this:

1. A farm is private property. You should have to have permission to film on private property (at least inside the property), and activists generally don't have that permission.
2. Activists lie on their job applications to get a job. So it's fraud too.

3. Therefore, there should be a separate law against applying for a job to film video on farms without permission. Filming farms without permission itself should also be against the law regardless of whether you have a job.

As far as I'm concerned, if the video is true, it is legal and protected free speech. Lying on a job application or not is a separate issue.

In either case, you don't need a separate law.

Defamation would be if you were presenting a falsehood about the farm as true, and it caused harm to the farm.

Message to the GOP: I want my #^$(** party back. Also, just because you don't agree with something, or it hurts your feelings, doesn't mean it should be against the law. Grow a pair and have some fucking courage to deal with diversity of opinion.

You didn't hear it from me but... (3, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469326)

Moo!

Re:You didn't hear it from me but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469402)

I demand you reveal your sources!

Re:You didn't hear it from me but... (2)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469558)

Knock-knock!
Who's there?
Interrupting cow.
Interrupting C-
Moo!

Thank you. I'll be here all night!

Re:You didn't hear it from me but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36470262)

Too bad you weren't born a cow.

Only in the US... (5, Insightful)

pitchpipe (708843) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469338)

... do we try to enact privacy laws for cows, all the while emasculating or eliminating entirely the privacy laws for humans. U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U...

Re:Only in the US... (4, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469356)

Replace "cows" with "corporations".

Re:Only in the US... (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469470)

But then replace "only in the US" with "A buncha places."

Re:Only in the US... (5, Funny)

nitehawk214 (222219) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469504)

Replace "cows" with "corporations".

Sounds like a great idea. Should make working at a slaughterhouse more appealing.

Re:Only in the US... (4, Funny)

SgtPepperKSU (905229) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469548)

Replace "cows" with "corporations".

Sounds like a great idea. Should make working at a slaughterhouse more appealing.

And thus, Torgo's Executive Powder was born...

Re:Only in the US... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469506)

Cowporations?

Re:Only in the US... (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469398)

We already have strict laws in the south about "defamation" of the meat industry... this isn't such a huge leap in the minds of of lobbyist.

Re:Only in the US... (3, Interesting)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469598)

Because God forbid their customers actually know what conditions the animals were kept in prior to slaughter.

Re:Only in the US... (4, Funny)

dimeglio (456244) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469752)

Our cattle reach enlightenment, then commit mass suicide. Yes, it's more work but our faculty feels it makes for better tasting meat.

Re:Only in the US... (4, Insightful)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470302)

It's important to know the name of your chicken before you eat it. [youtube.com]

What's funny is that common sense tells us that its obviously risible that people would care about the humane treatment of an animal, when it's just going to get its brains blasted out by a captive bolt gun, but when people do see videos of feedlots with cowshit up the cow's knees, or pigs getting gutted on an assembly line while alive and conscious, they get really upset. And justifiably.

Re:Only in the US... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36470288)

Who the fuck cares how they are treated. They are just a bunch of filthy animals.

Bad logic again from a representative... (5, Interesting)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469350)

If the company is adhering to the rules of the law, they wouldn't have to worry about being defamed by people who lied to be hired and then made covert video tapes.

What about THAT side of the argument, Annette Sweeney, farmer and Republican legislator?

Re:Bad logic again from a representative... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469430)

So... if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear?

Re:Bad logic again from a representative... (3, Interesting)

Ironchew (1069966) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469540)

So... if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear?

Exactly. Corporations are not entitled to privacy. Rather, they know the regulations; they should damn well obey them.

Re:Bad logic again from a representative... (0)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469606)

But, but that's SOCIALIST!

Re:Bad logic again from a representative... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469552)

Exactly. People get a right to privacy. Corporations do not.

Re:Bad logic again from a representative... (3, Informative)

Reziac (43301) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469792)

The trouble is that these "animal protection" outfits (themselves large multinational corporations) aren't filming actual incidents, but rather, are *staging* incidents for the purpose of filming them. So yes, the "protectionists" are actually abusing animals to demonstrate abuse.

In one case they got caught, having failed to edit out their own participation from the film presented as "evidence of abuse" in court.

In the infamous "skinning raccoon dogs alive" videos (I believe made by PETA), workers can be heard talking in Chinese -- some bilingual person translated the audible track and turned out they were saying, "Why are we being told to do it this way? this is wrong!"

In fact I've yet to hear of an "undercover video" that is entirely legit; all those I know of have some staged elements, to demonstrate the desired "abuse".

Re:Bad logic again from a representative... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36470296)

There was one on a news channel here in New Zealand. The company even admitted that it was correct a couple of days later, through an interview with a spokesperson.

So now you know of one.

Re:Bad logic again from a representative... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470180)

I think the problem is that even if they are complying with the law, it's not what a lot of people want to think about. Sort of like the hotdog factory, even if the company is in complete compliance with the relevant laws, they still don't want people to get grossed out by what goes on in there.

Uh... (-1, Flamebait)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469364)

They are cows. We are raising them to eat them. We are not raising them as pets. Some people are slightly more rough on the food, but it is just food. What's next, Africa picking up on this and outlawing lions from playing with the gazelles? No, we are a dominate species and are going to eat these. Hitting them only tenderizes the meat a little more. My meal just happens to still be partially alive when it is tenderized

Re:Uh... (4, Interesting)

ccabanne (1063778) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469404)

In my humble opinion, as humans, if we have an opportunity to raise food in a humane way, we should strive to do it.

Re:Uh... (0, Flamebait)

tetrahedrassface (675645) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469570)

Define humane? No pain? No suffering? No blood? No death? Even an abused beef cow was likely never hungry or thirsty, and likely recieved treatment for flies, worms, and vaccinated.... Think about it.

Re:Uh... (4, Interesting)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469748)

He doesn't have to define humane - it's already defined into law. A law that livestock operators know well, and are responsible for obeying.

And in this case it wasn't healthy, pampered cows being slaughtered for food, it was a bunch of sick, frostbitten, starved calves that had been so poorly cared for, they were bludgeoned to death and dumped. I think only a psychopath would not agree that behavior is inhumane and unacceptable.

Re:Uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469412)

ITT: Stupid kid who thinks being cruel to animals makes him manly.

Someone wasn't loved as a child.

Re:Uh... (5, Insightful)

speedplane (552872) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469460)

Does stabbing them with pitch-forks and gouging out their eyes help the meat taste better? What about when they slaughter cows that are too sick to walk? Yummy! The crap documented on these farms isn't just slapping a few cows around. It would shock any meat-eater and these activists are doing excellent work.

Re:Uh... (2)

Ricwot (632038) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469522)

Indeed, these are the farmers' property, being made less valuable by their actions. Do you smash your own windows? Do you key your own car?

Re:Uh... (1)

speedplane (552872) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469704)

But they are not being made less valuable because no one is aware of what is happening. Free markets require transparency. If people want to eat diseased meat, go right ahead, but they should be able to know that's what they're eating. All these groups are doing is bringing a meager amount of transparency to an opaque industry. If everyone could see what is happening at many large factory farms, the industry would change overnight.

Re:Uh... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470318)

Does stabbing them with pitch-forks and gouging out their eyes help the meat taste better?

I don't know, do you? Maybe a "lightly tortured" entree really would be more delicious.

Re:Uh... (2)

Ironchew (1069966) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469500)

Do you butcher your own meat? You seem to have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Natural predators strive for a clean, efficient kill, so your "lions and gazelles" analogy doesn't hold water. Animal cruelty encompasses disease and feed quality, among other things; it ends up in the food we eat. It's sad that it has to be put in such practical terms for you -- being tortured to death is something no being should have to endure.

Re:Uh... (2)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469616)

I am a huge supporter of anti-animal abuse as anyone but your facts are not really correct.

Predators often go for a quick efficient kill, but to learn how to do this they often spend time "playing" with their food while they are growing up and if an animal is down but not dead then they do not have a problem simply starting to eat as a animal is not going to get away if its entrails are hanging out.

And if we want to be complete then I could mention that many predatory bugs and fungi kill in excruciatingly gruesome fashions.

In summery animal predators do not really care one iota about their prays comfort, they simply are not ever sadistic without a really good reason.

Re:Uh... (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469816)

Natural predators strive for a clean, efficient kill,

Uh, I've seen enough nature videos with big cats munching on the guts of an ungulate that's STILL BREATHING ON THE GROUND BENEATH THEM to know that they really don't give much of a rat's ass about anything other than what's for lunch.

Re:Uh... (2)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469516)

That sounds like a reason to not care about the contents of the video. It doesn't sound like a good reason to make it a crime to record the video. Sure, you might say the purpose of the video is to spread propaganda that food isn't food, but propaganda shouldn't be a crime, even if you think it's bullshit.

It's batshit insane (well, no, actually just plain corrupt) that such a bill is even seriously considered.

Re:Uh... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469554)

Unlike you I have actually raised and slaughtered my own food. They may be food but you don't have to be cruel to them and make them miserable. Beating them to death? Really? Wtf is wrong with you? I waste extra shells to headshot any hunted animal after bringing it down to make sure it doesn't needlessly suffer, a lot of people do that.

Humanely killing animals is both cheap and easy, there is pretty much no excuse for the behavior you're advocating.

Re:Uh... (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469586)

They are cows. We are raising them to eat them. We are not raising them as pets. Some people are slightly more rough on the food, but it is just food. What's next, Africa picking up on this and outlawing lions from playing with the gazelles? No, we are a dominate species and are going to eat these.

Until the animal is sacrificed to cut it up, the animal is not yet food.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your POV), the US has laws that restrict what things we are allowed to use as food, and restrict how or when we can turn animals and plants into food or other supplements; and some animal cruelty laws have been lobbed in there.

Try nailing a Deer out of season or using an unauthorized bait or hunting weapon, for food, because your family is starving, and see how much "mercy" your story about how you supposedly need "food" to survive or its inferior prey gets with the game warden.

As for lions playing with gazelles; they don't really mistreat their prey, they hunt it and kill it within fairly short order, once they are hungry, and they get a little exercise in chasing it for a few minutes. More importantly, they don't have to obey human laws about how/when/where we can get food, and what we are allowed to use as food.

I'm not sure if the story's a step in the right direction or not. This country sure needs to get rid of a lot of heavyhanded, silly laws, that unnecessarily restrict freedom, based on some person's opinion or disgust at another person's supposedly cruel practices.

I mean.... what could be more cruel to a living thing than killing it(?)

Re:Uh... (0)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470220)

outlawing lions from playing with the gazelles

Other animals torture their prey. Therefore, it's "okay" (whatever that means, since morality is subjective anyway) if we do it!

I've read the summary three times (1)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469370)

and I still don't understand it. Is the legislation stalled or about to be approved ?

Re:I've read the summary three times (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469422)

Yes. [youtube.com]

Pot calling kettle black (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469374)

Isn't that what every politician does to get elected? Lie to get the job?
I hope they vote that lying cunt out.

Corporations... (3, Insightful)

Ann O'Nymous-Coward (460094) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469380)

... are the US's sacred cows.

Nice to see a Republican (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469382)

concerned about lying.

Re:Nice to see a Republican (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469636)

Now we just have to get the Democrats [youtube.com] to follow suit.

Some american tell me (5, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469420)

why is it that always republicans are behind the gravest, dastardliest shit, and they are behind less dastardly shit with a democrat close to their aisle ?

a while ago, i heard that mccain and 30 other republican senators opposed a bill which would prevent companies from putting clauses into their contracts that would prevent female employees from suing the company if they were raped in company's employ overseas by company employees. that included john mccain, the presidential candidate. the justification was 'we think it is wrong to tell businesses how to do business'. so, its ok if a company legislates rape in its overseas operations by putting a clause in its contracts ?

what the fuck is wrong with republicans ?

Re:Some american tell me (1, Funny)

jmottram08 (1886654) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469530)

Yes. Republicans are pro-rape. You hit it on the head. Congratulations.

Re:Some american tell me (4, Interesting)

joggle (594025) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469560)

No, they're simply business-first, everything else second (including rape...).

Re:Some american tell me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469630)

No, they're simply business-first, everything else second (including rape...).

In the post-911 world, the correct term is "objectively pro-rape." If you don't agree, then you're objectively pro-terror, you terrorist.

Or objectively pro-Saddam. I think that was big for a while. Hey can anyone tell me if we've moved up to "objectively pro-Qaddafi" yet?

Re:Some american tell me (5, Interesting)

guspasho (941623) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469596)

When it comes down to stopping rape or protecting business, those guys chose business. That shows you how sociopathic they are.

Re:Some american tell me (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469664)

Yes. Republicans are pro-rape. You hit it on the head. Congratulations.

And, in this case specifically... are they trying to protect raping the cows?

Re:Some american tell me (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469830)

No, they're trying to keep it private. Subtle difference. Not sure it's really about the cow, though.

Re:Some american tell me (4, Interesting)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469594)

why is it that always republicans are behind the gravest, dastardliest shit, and they are behind less dastardly shit with a democrat close to their aisle ?

a while ago, i heard that mccain and 30 other republican senators opposed a bill which would prevent companies from putting clauses into their contracts that would prevent female employees from suing the company if they were raped in company's employ overseas by company employees. that included john mccain, the presidential candidate. the justification was 'we think it is wrong to tell businesses how to do business'. so, its ok if a company legislates rape in its overseas operations by putting a clause in its contracts ?

what the fuck is wrong with republicans ?

Simple. They like gang rape. They are opposed to abortions.

You work it out.

Re:Some american tell me (2, Informative)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469838)

Republicans are psychopaths.

That isn't news.

Re:Some american tell me (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469998)

Braveheart?

Re:Some american tell me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36470306)

They are Muslim extremists?

Re:Some american tell me (5, Interesting)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469628)

a while ago, i heard that mccain and 30 other republican senators opposed a bill which would prevent companies from putting clauses into their contracts that would prevent female employees from suing the company if they were raped in company's employ overseas by company employees. that included john mccain, the presidential candidate. the justification was 'we think it is wrong to tell businesses how to do business'. so, its ok if a company legislates rape in its overseas operations by putting a clause in its contracts ?

It wasn't even a regulation. It was just a restriction placed on government agencies saying that they couldn't spend money on contractors who did this. It wasn't stopping the contractors from actually doing it if they really wanted to, it was just the government "voting with its wallet" that they didn't want to support companies that did.

Re:Some american tell me (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469634)

a while ago, i heard that mccain and 30 other republican senators opposed a bill which would prevent companies from putting clauses into their contracts that would prevent female employees from suing the company if they were raped in company's employ overseas by company employees.

Ever heard of "riders?" Yes, the public spin put on the bill was that it would prevent clauses forbidding women to sue for being raped.

The actual bill essentially made companies liable for actions performed by third parties. How that got spun into "allowing companies to gangrape female employees" is beyond me. But it's an excellent example of spin.

Re:Some american tell me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469784)

Liar

Re:Some american tell me (2, Interesting)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469676)

why is it that always republicans are behind the gravest, dastardliest shit, and they are behind less dastardly shit with a democrat close to their aisle ?

Democrats do some dastardly shit too. It depends a little on what you consider dastardly I guess. Some of my (sigh) inlaws would undoubtedly find this silly at worst, but will find the John Edwards (Democrat) affair to be the worst thing ever. Which one affects more people? The current abomination if it passes. Which one can those simpletons understand? The douche cheating on his dying wife. Which one will they complain about over christmas dinner? The democrat.

Note to self, stock up on alchohol this Christmas...

As far as why it seems republicans are always behind shit like this, that's confirmation bias. Misusing the law to benefit corporations happens on both sides of the aisle (democrats aren't sworn enemies of the RIAA or MPAA). As someone who is more sympathetic to democrats, you naturally find ways of writing it off as one bad egg, or not that bad when you hear about Democrats doing it, wheras when a republican does it, it's "Oh those fucking republicans!"

I'm a democrat, and sometimes find myself doing that too.

It's important to keep in mind, there's a clear difference between republicans and republican politicians. Republicans are nice people generally(except the ones that are going to go on and on and on about how society is going to hell because one politician cheated on his dying wife). I might find them a bit naive, and disagree with what they value more, but I know plenty of republicans, and they all are as opposed to rape as I would expect any sane person to be (wouldn't put it past one or two of my inlaws to blame the victim though).

Republican politicians though are evil, but maybe only a little bit more than democrat politicians. Their constituents might be less concerned with the rights of individuals, and might pay more attention to their politicians' personal lives. I think in many cases that makes republican politicians more likely to sell out public interests in favor of corporate interests, like the case here.

The short answer is "because 1. they're not and 2. they have different values than you."

Re:Some american tell me (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470208)

By and large you're correct, however, if you've been paying attention, Democratic politicians are more likely to break ranks than GOP politicians are. It's the natural consequence of being the big tent party. In the past the GOP was the big tent party and back then the GOP politicians were more likely to break ranks.

The point is that it's more likely that it genuinely is a matter of one bad apple on the Democratic side of things right now than it is on the GOP side of things. And it's getting more and more like that as more and more moderate Republicans can't get past the primaries. Eventually that will change, but for the time being it's how that's working out.

Re:Some american tell me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469710)

Ah yes Franken's bill. You forgot to mention the part about the doubts about its enforceability, and the fact that the DoD and White House also opposed it. But then the MSM conveniently fails to mention it as well, so maybe you just hadn't heard, since clearly you believe everything you see there and think that nothing else 'dastardly' happens in the world.

Re:Some american tell me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469820)

what the fuck is wrong with republicans ?

Nothing. They just see more of the world than you. They see the part where lawyers and greedy, lying claimants abuse the legal system for big settlements. They see huge, ongoing payouts recorded on the ledgers of every institution in the US for trumped up bullshit 'sexual harassment' lawsuits. They see intentionally vague laws being written at the behest of trial lawyers [opensecrets.org] to maximize opportunities for liability, and they see which party is doing it. They see capital and organizations evacuating the US every day in part because all this legal bullshit has become intolerable, and they see their standard of living collapsing as a result.

You're just an angry, hateful little WoW playing office drone that pisses away a big chunk of every working day posting your malcontent nonsense on Slashdot. What do you know.

Re:Some american tell me (1)

Happy Nuclear Death (911893) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470032)

Because you are a myopic idiot. The great evils forced on Americans by government are nearly always bipartisan efforts. Otherwise they wouldn't happen.

Then again, who am I to deprive you of your comfortable generalization? Go ahead and believe whatever you like, it's not like you vote here.

Re:Some american tell me (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470210)

why is it that always republicans are behind the gravest, dastardliest shit, and they are behind less dastardly shit with a democrat close to their aisle ? what the fuck is wrong with republicans ?

Don't blame just the Republicans. Blame the gutless Democrats who don't stand up to them too.

Would Never Survive First Amendment Anyway (2)

speedplane (552872) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469446)

This law would never have survived First Amendment scrutiny anyway. It not only prohibited taking the videos, but also prohibited displaying them on the news. But even if it was unconstitutional, it's great that it's dead now rather than later.

Solution is simple (2)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469486)

They don't need a lawsuit. All they need is to attach those special apple IR transmitters to the cows and there's no problem at all.

Re:Solution is simple (1)

guspasho (941623) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469642)

It's a good thing that iPhones are the only devices that can take photographs.

Kettle meet pot. Pot meet kettle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469512)

Of course Iowa representative Annette Sweeney only partially lies, being a politician. Making promises she doesn't intend to keep, is part of her job description.

Nature is cruel. (1)

tetrahedrassface (675645) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469534)

It may seem like cruelty however those images of lions and hyenas ripping apart still breathing baby gazelles in Africa is probably more cruel. I say we need to outlaw lions, tigers, and other apex predators.. or in fact why don't we ban or prohibit nature completely? Let's face it, a if animals were mistreated it couldn't have been worse than have your throat ripped open, or your intestines laid open by a sharp claw only to wander in shock as night falls and your herd leaves you deserted on your own........ meh

Re:Nature is cruel. (3, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469578)

Doesn't matter. We don't have to rip apart still living creatures to feed ourselves, I think that alone justifies the notion that if we're going to eat meat that we at least have the decency to treat it with some modicum of respect. I don't think that torturing animals makes them healthier to eat or more delicious.

Re:Nature is cruel. (1)

tetrahedrassface (675645) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469624)

I agree, but the very act of butchering is mean. The final solution in Germany was supposed to be 'humane'... Just saying it is factory food production and occurs all the time, and really except in egregious examples of cruelty probably isn't as bad as PETA and others would have us believe.

Re:Nature is cruel. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470158)

Butchering isn't mean, the animal is already dead at that point. Gas chambers are humane provided the correct gas is used. The problem with the final solution wasn't the gas chambers, it was the gas they were using and the reason for doing so. Not to mention the lead up to the gassing and all the other parts of it that were horribly wrong.

But when it comes to meat, you're going to have to kill something if you're going to eat meat, the raising and killing is the portion where things are or are not humane. And yes, a lot of what PETA, probably nearly all, can be discounted, but the conditions are pretty bad, particularly on factory farms.

Oblig. Futurama (1)

hoborg1 (1977356) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470266)

Elzar: We've got a wonderful grizzly bear that's been dipped in cornmeal and lightly tormented. Questions?
  Amy: What was the bear's name?
Elzar: Jojo.
  Amy: Ooh, I'll have him.

Re:Nature is cruel. But Tasty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36470390)

The fear and pain seeps into the meat making it that much more delicious.

Re:Nature is cruel. (1)

guspasho (941623) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469622)

Let me introduce you to something that may be foreign to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization [wikipedia.org]

Your argument could be used to justify literally anything, from theft to gang rape to murder to genocide. That has to be worthy of some kind of award in horribleness. Congratulations.

Re:Nature is cruel. (1)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469644)

Or you could stop being an idiot for a while. We're not barbarians, and we're not animals. Just because they may treat their prey in an inhumane manner doesn't mean that we should follow suit.

Re:Nature is cruel. (1)

tetrahedrassface (675645) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469788)

Funny we seem to care more about a few poor cows then we do about war. Oh that's right, we only fight humane wars. Right?

Re:Nature is cruel. (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470274)

We can only care about one thing at a time, after all.

Re:Nature is cruel. (1)

TENTH SHOW JAM (599239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469766)

I think I read a comment like this further up the list. Lemme check.

by Stregano (1285764) on Fri June 17, 9:19 (#36469364)

Yup. I did. Hello all my meat working slashdot friends. I am kind of proud of Australia's stance on animal cruelty where once a video of slaughter house cruelty was exposed, we refused to send cows to that country until they got their act together. (Dispite loosing market share etc.)

Re:Nature is cruel. (1)

Seraphim_72 (622457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470084)

By all means, I implore you to only kill your meat with your claws and teeth and eat it raw.

Journalism (3, Insightful)

thorgil (455385) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469556)

Trying to outlaw this kind of undercover journalism, would in my view be to undermine democracy.In my humble view, this kind of legislation heads the road to FASCISM. There is a couple of other words for it, but this one fit well enough. /T

Re:Journalism (2)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470372)

Note that if this law had passed, and in other jurisdictions where these laws are in effect, undercover journalism that impacts the business of a farm can be prosecuted as terrorism [wikipedia.org] , given the underlying illegality of the videotaping.

Whistle Blower Protection (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469564)

These recordings are whistle blowers that are bringing to light illegal activities of employers with hard evidence. The corporations are lining governors pockets to eliminate them. That's against human rights and the supreme court will strike it down so fast and strengthen whistle blower protection.

Corporate Espionage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469568)

It seems like the people making the recordings are very close to (if not) committing cooperate espionage. If the company were to say the way they process the cattle is a trade secret, couldn’t they file a suit against the person or organization that created the recordings?

My point being, if it’s already illegal, do we need to make it more illegal?

Re:Corporate Espionage (2)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469654)

If the company were to say the way they process the cattle is a trade secret, couldn’t they file a suit against the person or organization that created the recordings?

Not if their "trade secret" was actually breaking the law.

Ok to video farmers... (3, Interesting)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469614)

but not cops? Why can we gather evidence of animal abuse by videoing farmers, but we cannot gather evidence of human abuse by law enforcement?

Cops and corporations (1)

alexo (9335) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469678)

This sounds a lot like the push to outlaw the recording of cops in order to prevent exposure of their brutality.

Since it is currently inconvenient to create one set of laws for the privileged and another for the plebs, they are trying to deny the people access to anything that can be used to oppose them, including in the court of law.

Not cows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469698)

They are generally heifers and steers. (Except for veal which is obviously calves.)

and in florida (4, Interesting)

nimbius (983462) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469806)

a law was proposed which would make it illegal to film or photograph a farm as well.
The problem is customers have grown to appreciate the warm wool pulled over their eyes that depicts farms as wholesome, good, and kindhearted.
A place where animals die of natural causes and everyone attends church on sundays.
The average consumer doesnt understand high density/high intensity farming and agriculture and when prompted, generally does not care to learn about it.
the educated consumer understands high density/high intensity farming and agriculture, but still readily retreats to his Pepperidge farm fantasy.
The facts stand and yet we ignore them in the pursuit of ever larger quarter pounders and ever more delicious ribs.
A factory farm is a hell mouth, strewn with feces six-inches deep and animals literally one foot in the grave.
chickens are too bloated from hormones to stand, cows too drugged to care about the gaping abscess that was once an eye,
pigs boiled alive in pursuit of shaving seconds from a cycle time on a machine
and immigrant labor too illegal to question a single action or decision for fear of losing their american dream.

once in a while, just every so often, an undercover PETA investigation might bring light to these torture engines.
workers may find comfort in this as a means to perhaps ending the suffering they witness daily but even with this bills defeat, the fact remains:
consumers blissfully ignorant will fill in the blanks and avoid the truth;
effectively marching lockstep in the corporate machine of factory farming.

and if you dont care to know where your brisket or tenderloin or chicken nugget comes from, you have no right to contest your cancer, low sperm count, obesity and heart disease.

Re:and in florida (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470104)

You might have an agenda. Granted it's stupid to try and stop journalism.

Re:and in florida (2)

dizzysoul (2275254) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470334)

I signed up to slashdot just so I could (possibly) promote you. Well said. Please mod this up. My only complaint is that PETA is a terrible corrupt organization in of itself. It's sad that we rely on them to go after other terrible corrupt organizations. The whole system is one big mess.

And the real question is: (1)

Corbets (169101) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469862)

Moooo cares?

Brutal Money - Brutal Laws (1)

glorybe (946151) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470088)

Whether it is some demented jerk causing needless suffering to animals or a cop who abuses his position everyone seems to really hate decency and fair play. It is time we encourage every individual to film and voice record as much as they can, everywhere. Today we saw a congressman resign over sending pics on the net. I for one make him look like a lily white virgin. Probably half the people in America get funky in some "non- approved way". How about all the tender heads get used to their own actions and words being available for all the world to see? If you do it or say it why not own up to it? Maybe you'll find out you are just like everyone else.

Apple is working on this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36470150)

Soon IR devices in barns will be able to shut off video recording equipment.

Now I'm wondering... (1)

Okian Warrior (537106) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470332)

Does a cow have a Buddha nature?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>