Iowa Rejects Video Privacy Protection For Cows 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."
However - if they have video evidence - defame ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder though - if they have good video evidence. Is it really defamation ?
Re:However - if they have video evidence - defame (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
They're animals, and deserve to be treated humanely. Beating a dog produces pain; so does beating a cow. Cows are used for meat, it's true, but they don't deserve torture or mistreatment.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't really about defamation though, their argument is that the activists are seeking employment under false premises, and that this should be considered a form of fraud.
Re:However - if they have video evidence - defame (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:However - if they have video evidence - defame (Score:4, Insightful)
The farms don't want the cruelty investigations to stop.
They just want it restricted to bona fide undercover police agents whose political bosses are easier to bribe.
You didn't hear it from me but... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Knock-knock!
Who's there?
Interrupting cow.
Interrupting C-
Moo!
Thank you. I'll be here all night!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only in the US... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Only in the US... (Score:5, Insightful)
Replace "cows" with "corporations".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Only in the US... (Score:5, Funny)
Replace "cows" with "corporations".
Sounds like a great idea. Should make working at a slaughterhouse more appealing.
Re:Only in the US... (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
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... (Score:4, Interesting)
Because God forbid their customers actually know what conditions the animals were kept in prior to slaughter.
Re:Only in the US... (Score:5, Funny)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Our cattle reach enlightenment (Score:3)
Mu.
(It's a Buddhist joke Mods.)
Bad logic again from a representative... (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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 he
Re: (Score:2)
I see. So, "animal protection" outfits are lying and defaming (which they can be sued under libel/slander laws) and committing animal abuse (which is already a criminal offense), so we need new laws to ban undercover videos (which
Re: (Score:3)
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.
If that was indeed the case, then why do we need new laws? Why don't we use the existing animal protection laws to sue the "protectionists", and make sure that the outcome was made known to the public?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How did this post get modded up so much? It's garbage.
Let's see actual evidence of multiple accounts of this type of fraud.
Some guy on the internet saying that most of the videos are staged is highly suspect and unlikely. As the saying goes: remarkable claims require remarkable evidence.
Perhaps there have been some unscrupulous filming incidents, but it's unlikely very many are guilty of this, given all it takes is the worker to say 'well, they got me to stage this'. On the flip side, there are many account
Re:Bad logic again from a representative... (Score:5, Interesting)
In one case they got caught, having failed to edit out their own participation from the film presented as "evidence of abuse" in court.
... says a guy on the Internet, without bothering to cite any names, dates or facts that can be checked. This wanker is modded up to "5 informative". Idiots everywhere.
Clue: if this had really happened, there would be no problem prosecuting the fakers. They'd already be in jail. So name them. Or is this just something you saw on some blog and are passing on after embroidering it a little more?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bad logic again from a representative... (Score:4, Interesting)
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... (Score:4, Interesting)
Corporations are not entitled to privacy.
This would be true, but in the USA corporations are people and therefor have all the same rights as people, but not all the same morals and ethics.
I've read the summary three times (Score:2)
Corporations... (Score:3, Insightful)
... are the US's sacred cows.
Some american tell me (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Republicans are psychopaths.
That isn't news.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Some american tell me (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans, Democrats, and anyone else who can define their entire ideology by a single word is "a bit naive!"
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
For the same reason the farmer loses out when he lets the fox into the hen house.
Re: (Score:3)
IANAL, but I believe your employer is obligated to provide you with a safe working environment, doubly so with regards to your membership in protected classes. If an employer permits a hostile working environment, especially one that unduly affects people who are members of protected classes (in this case, women) it is a form of illegal discrimination and you most certainly do have recourse.
You can't hire the KKK, let them turn your workplace into a de facto Klan meeting, and let them intimidate or harm
Re:Some american tell me (Score:5, Interesting)
No, they're simply business-first, everything else second (including rape...).
Re:Some american tell me (Score:5, Interesting)
When it comes down to stopping rape or protecting business, those guys chose business. That shows you how sociopathic they are.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I hate to sound "pro-rape" here, but a contract is a willing agreement between 2 people. Do you want the government worming its way in the middle, even with the best of intentions?
So, you're down with rape as well as (for instance) slavery. Why not just go whole-hog and move to Somalia? I promise the government won't interfere with your contracts there.
Re:Some american tell me (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
No, they're trying to keep it private. Subtle difference. Not sure it's really about the cow, though.
Would Never Survive First Amendment Anyway (Score:2)
Solution is simple (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
It's a good thing that iPhones are the only devices that can take photographs.
Nature is cruel. (Score:2)
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.......
Re:Nature is cruel. (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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. A
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with the final solution wasn't the gas chambers, it was the gas they were using and the reason for doing so
And here I thought the problem was that they were killing sentient beings in the first place. Of course, if one followed that logic one might wonder about the ethics of airstrikes which kill civilians as 'collateral damage'.
Apparently it's okay to start a machine which you know will kill civilians as long as you're doing it to assassinate leaders of a murderous political movement you don't like, but not okay to start another machine which you know will kill civilians in order to put political pressure on an
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
We can only care about one thing at a time, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
For one thing, cows don't have armies and can't fight back.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
By all means, I implore you to only kill your meat with your claws and teeth and eat it raw.
Journalism (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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.
Ok to video farmers... (Score:4, Interesting)
Cops and corporations (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
So now we can't record either cows or pigs?
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You might have an agenda. Granted it's stupid to try and stop journalism.
Re: (Score:2)
And the real question is: (Score:2)
Moooo cares?
Now I'm wondering... (Score:2)
Does a cow have a Buddha nature?
Re: (Score:2)
Does a cow have a Buddha nature?
Mu.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it *really* defamation... (Score:2)
...if it's true? Pretty sure it isn't. Seems kind of like trying to manipulate and say that a tree falling in the woods *doesn't* make a sound, just because nobody heard it. We all know that's not the case.
We need more investigators not less (Score:2)
It may be useful to read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. It is a book about the horrors of the meatpacking industry back in the beginning of the 20th C.
Things have changed quite a lot, but believing that change is comprehensive requires an expectation that actual conditions are frequently reported without feat of reprisal, and that appropriate action is then taken.
I have a suspicion that corporate interests have conspired to make opaque the ingredients and methods used in fast food and even supermarket meats.
Re:Uh... (Score:4, Interesting)
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... (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Think about why kobe beef is renowned for its flavor. In japan, they treat their cattle like royalty.
My guess is that stressing the animals is bad simply because it makes the meat taste worse.
Farmers should be humane to the livestock out of simple self interest.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Maybe a "lightly tortured" entree really would be more delicious.
It's called "veal."
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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 g
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
My domestic cats disagree.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 rest
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Cows might be property, but as living creatures we recognize that they are a special kind of living creature. If you took your sofa out back, tied it down and threw bricks at it you wouldn't get in trouble. There would be nothing anyone could do about your destruction of your sofa using bricks. Do the same with a cow, dog or other animal you own, though, and you'll be arrested for animal cruelty (rightfully so). Yes, the cows are going to be killed and turned into meat, but that doesn't mean you need to