DCI: Counselor dropped Sweet off at Cedar Rapids apartments
GOP chided for exclusive deal on caucus results
In Des Moines stop, Romney says Obama started ‘prairie fire of debt’
WATCH: Isaiah Sweet makes first court appearance in Manchester double murder
Cedar Rapids police release name of man injured while in custody
MidAmerican reviewing options after nuclear energy bill stalls in Iowa Senate
East Iowa clinics example of new model for health care
 Todd DormanTodd Dorman is a columnist for The Gazette. His blog has been bringing smiles to readers' faces since November 2007. |
|
Lawmakers should scrap farm recordings crackdown
If some Iowa lawmakers get their way, filming pigs could land you to in the pokey.
Legislation that recently cleared the House and a Senate panel would make it a crime to take stealthy footage or audio of livestock and crop operations. Farmers, backers argue, need protection from animal-rights-types who get jobs at confinement operations hoping to get footage of animal mistreatment. Making those videos would be a crime, under the bills.
The measures include other provisions aimed at destruction of property, but candid camera criminality is the fighting issue.
This is not surprising. If there’s a group of people on the planet who knows it’s best if we don’t see where sausage comes from, it’s lawmakers.
If they allow this sort of thing, somebody might think about bringing secret cameras into that big gold-domed legislator confinement facility in Des Moines. Just think if we ever got a shaky, grainy look at all those lobbyist huddles and closed caucuses and private budget negotiations.
Oh, the carnage.
It’s also bad legislation. Backers insist it’s all about PETA provocateurs, but it could also make criminals out of any Iowans who see something troubling down on the farm and flip open a cell phone to get visual proof. When you boil this down to its bones, the only people who would truly benefit are people doing something wrong.
Backers argue that videos are edited to make things look worse, cutting out scenes, evidently, where pigs get Swedish massages and snifters of brandy. They also say we’ll misunderstand what we’re seeing. We’ll get the wrong idea about farming.
Please. We’re Iowans. Anyone who has lived here for more than a meal or two ought to know that livestock production is, at times, more Stephen King than Grant Wood. Getting delicious chops from pigs to plates isn’t always pretty. We don’t expect our steaks to come from cattle that died of natural causes, surrounded by family and friends.
We do expect livestock production to be humane and lawful. We also expect safe food. And with all the gaps in our government inspection dragnet, we just might need amateurs with cameras.
Certainly, prosecutors and judges in this farm state can tell the difference between typical farming and unlawful abuse when they see it. Under these bills, they might not get the chance.
And really, why should agriculture get a hall pass from the modern world? For better or worse, we live in the most meticulously documented times in world history. Our cameras never blink. You can’t even fall into a shopping mall fountain without millions of people watching.
If NPR can have its federal subsidy yanked thanks to a secret video, why should agribusiness be protected? Agriculture gets federal subsidies by the billions of bushels. That’s a lot of “Car Talk” tote bags.
Hopefully, lawmakers will send these bills to a nice farm in the country. No pictures, please.
“If some Iowa lawmakers get their way, filming pigs could land you to the pokey.”
Omigosh, Todd, am I such a pedant that I’m the only one who finds your last preposition grating!?
However, your argument here is spot on. While there is nothing wrong if the legislature wants to target individuals who abuse animals, then film and represent their abuse as standard procedure, that is NOT what happened in the film made at the Spencer chicken facility. As written, this bill threatens First Amendment freedoms, and I have no doubt that an animal-rights group will go undercover, film in a confinement facility, then file an appeal on First Amendment grounds if they are prosecuted.
Like so much else that has come out of the legislature this session, this bill is a horrid idea, and complete waste of time. Thank-you, TEA types, for electing incompetents!
You know, I swear I wrote `in the pokey.’ Huh. Did not notice that. I will edit. And I agree with your First Amendment misgivings about the bill.
Urrah, Todd! Now, can you get the Gazette powers-that-be to do something about “couragious,” “intelligencia,” and “NPS,” which have ALL appeared in headlines the last few days!?
“Please. We’re Iowans. Anyone who has lived here for more than a meal or two ought to know that livestock production is, at times, more Stephen King than Grant Wood.”
“Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.
Otto von Bismarck”
Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/o/ottovonbis161318.html#ixzz1HXo9BlXf
There are first amendment concerns. This law could set a precedent. If you may not film pigs, it could be extended to legislators.
Indeed a horrid bill — about as bad as they come. It should be titled the “Livestock abuse and mistreatment permission bill”.
Stop the presses! Consider that PETA, HSUS and the media all stand to profit from spy cams.
PETA says that milk is liquid meat and works torward banning both. HSUS is noted for a staff that treats themselves very well financially with donations brought about with spy cams. Their CEO adorns himself in Armani suits and Italian leather shoes – please keep your donations coming! And what does it say about those who elevate these people to hero status?
The Gazette praises employees who spy cam on businesses but “gomers” businesses that spy on employees. How is this justified? Does the Gazette staff want to make sure that they are not spied upon when betting on the NCAA basketball tournament? Or are there good crimes and bad crimes? Perhaps a witty journalist can straighten us out?!
If you want to allow subjectivity into the spy issue then I vote for spy cams in all homes. We should be finding out who is not correctly seperating their trash. We only have one planet you know – lets not allow anyone to harm earth.
In case you miss-interpret my response, this is not in defense of animal abuse. Rather, its about putting this spy issue to rest, permanently. Hurrah for legislators trying to protect those of us who simply find it morally wrong to spy on your neighbor or anyone else for that matter. And if you disagree with that statement, you’ll want to note that the Gazette has made it easy for you to check on which of your neighbors have been caught on traffic cams.
“but ‘gomers’ businesses that spy on employees”
Curt, this is merely the most egregious misrepresentation in a very incoherent post. If you are referring to the UIHC incident, at BEST using a baby monitor to eavesdrop on employees is terrible personnel management; at worst, the incident was a violation of Iowa electronic eavesdropping law.
You are free to dislike animal rights organizations. However, you say NOTHING about how this law may be a violation of the First Amendment, or how animal rights groups could very well use this law as a test case and win. Is it really that hard to grasp that this law is just plain stupid!?
Don’t bother Jeff, he’s a farm bureau guy, who’s against any sort of accountability for farmers even when it makes sense.
Fact is, this bill is trying to give farmers special rights that other companies and citizens do not have. That’s my real objection to it, as what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I don’t think the Iowa legislature would like to make it a crime only for me if I filmed my neighbor murdering someone….
Plus, frankly, this law won’t last in court. It’s almost like an anti-whistleblower law.
There’s really not much you can do when someone is observing you from their own property or public right of way ala Google Street View. And unlike speed camera’s, it’s not a voluntary thing where we directly control the elected officials who CHOOSE to put them up.
just curious: if you knew or suspected a neighbor of abuse, animal or otherwise, would you do nothing? Based on tapes I’ve seen this legislation smells to high heaven: more about protecting those bad actors than “spying” on good neighbors. Like I told my son, when he was a teenager, if you don’t want anyone knowing you did something (wrong) don’t do it!
I think this will turn out to be nothing more than a waste of money, and as usual, lawmakers are getting nothing serious accomplished. It doesn’t matter if every farm is spyed on – the abusers are not punished, and the slaughter houses have FDA inspectors, but their hands are tied and they can not, for the most part, take any adverse action on cruelty. It’s true that meat production is not pretty. But there are two issues here; the first ammendment, and secondly, what is it that the lawmakers are trying to cover up? Could it be their own inablility to enforce humane treatment laws? Why would they keep inspectors from doing their jobs and reporting abuse at the packing plants? The appearance here is that some palms were heavily greased to get this sort of nonsensical law into action.
I predict that. like the Mourning Dove Hunting bill that > 50% of Iowans opposed, this bill will sail though both chambers and be blithely signed into law by The Governor Redux. Because Big Ag wants it and they have paid good money to buy this legislation.
If this terrible law is passed and tested in court I suspect it will found to be unconstitutional.