For background, read Planned Parenthood Caught Selling Aborted Babies on Video while the Media, Obama and Democrats Conspire With Abortionists to Counter Videos
-- From "Judge Strikes Down Idaho 'Ag-Gag' Law, Raising Questions For Other States" by Luke Runyon, National Public Radio NPR 8/4/15
Animal rights groups cheered the decision on the Idaho law this week from U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill. Winmill found the state's "Agricultural Security Act" unconstitutional for criminalizing certain types of speech.
Laws in Montana, Utah, North Dakota, Missouri, Kansas and Iowa have also made it illegal for activists to smuggle cameras into industrial animal operations. A new North Carolina law goes into effect in January 2016. But now those laws' days could be numbered, according to the lead attorney for the coalition of animal welfare groups that sued the state of Idaho.
"Ag-gag" refers to a variety of laws meant to curb undercover investigations of agricultural operations, often large dairy, poultry and pork farms. The Idaho law criminalized video or audio recording of a farm without the owner's consent and lying to a farm owner to gain employment there to do an undercover investigation.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Idaho Ag-Gag Law Struck Down" posted at Corporate Crime Reporter 8/4/15
Idaho’s ag-gag statute makes it a crime to conduct an undercover investigation at an Idaho agricultural facility. Under this law, journalists, workers, activists, and members of the public can be convicted for videotaping animal cruelty or life-threatening safety violations.
Public Justice challenged the law in Idaho federal court as part of a broad coalition including the Animal Legal Defense Fund, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho, Center for Food Safety, and Farm Sanctuary.
The coalition argued that the ag-gag statute violates the First Amendment by suppressing speech that criticizes factory farms, and that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it was motivated by unconstitutional animus against animal advocates.
The court agreed on both counts, holding that the law has the effect of suppressing speech on topics of immense public importance including the safety of the food supply, and the safety of farm workers and animals.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Judge extends order blocking antiabortion group’s video release" by Bob Egelko, a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer 8/7/15
A federal judge in San Francisco agreed Friday to extend by at least six weeks his order prohibiting an antiabortion group from releasing videos or confidential information it obtained by infiltrating two national conventions of a group of abortion providers.
U.S. District Judge William Orrick had issued a temporary restraining order against the Center for Medical Progress [CMP] on Aug. 3, saying its members had signed a pledge of confidentiality before entering the meetings of the National Abortion Federation and might expose federation members to harassment and violence by posting videos.
Orrick had scheduled a hearing Aug. 27 on whether to convert the restraining order into a preliminary injunction that would remain in effect until a trial on the abortion federation’s suit for damages. He postponed the hearing until Oct. 9 on Friday at the request of both sides, who said they needed more time to prepare.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "U.S. judge halts release of secretly recorded videos of abortion providers" by Alan Zarembo, Los Angeles Times 8/1/15
In a statement Friday, the nonprofit Center for Medical Progress described the National Abortion Federation as "a criminal organization" and said it "will contest any attempt to suppress our First Amendment rights to free speech."
The court order was the second issued last week against the Center for Medical Progress. On July 28, a Superior Court judge in Los Angeles ordered the group not to publish footage from a May lunch meeting with leaders of Stem Express, a Placerville, Calif., company that provides fetal tissue to researchers.
California Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris is investigating whether the Center for Medical Progress violated any state laws in obtaining the videos. In California, it is generally illegal to record a confidential conversation without the consent of all parties.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Federal Judge Who Banned Planned Parenthood Video Releases Once Raised $230,000 For Obama" by Timothy Meads, Daily Caller 8/1/15
The National Abortion Federation filed a restraining order against the CMP early Friday morning, and only a few hours later Judge William Orrick, III approved the request to temporarily ban CMP from releasing any more videos.
Orrick was not only an Obama appointee in 2012 but also a prominent campaign bundler, the Federalist first reported. According to Public Citizen, Judge Orrick raised $200,000 for Obama in 2008 as well as over $30,000 for committees supporting Obama.
Orrick’s approval of NAF’s injunction came just a day after White House Press Secretary John Earnest said in regards to Planned Parenthood, “the President certainly will not support another effort by Republicans to try to defund an organization that offers important and needed healthcare services to women across the country.”
Earnest also said that “extremists on the right” released the videos in a “fraudulent way.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
When reading the following opinion piece, interchange "animal" with "unborn baby," and interchange "agriculture industry" with "abortion industry."
From "Idaho's Anti-Whistleblower Ag Gag Law Ruled Unconstitutional" by Amanda Hitt, Director of the Food Integrity Campaign (Government Accountability Project) 8/4/15
. . . U.S. Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill, who struck down Idaho's anti-whistleblower Ag Gag law [wrote]:
The effect of the statute will be to suppress speech by undercover investigators and whistleblowers concerning topics of great public importance: the safety of the public food supply, the safety of agricultural workers, the treatment and health of farm animals, and the impact of business activities on the environment.The Court also emphasized the utility of undercover video, often relied upon by whistleblowers who justifiably fear retaliation when going through internal channels to report wrongdoing.
Audio and visual evidence is a uniquely persuasive means of conveying a message, and it can vindicate an undercover investigator or whistleblower who is otherwise disbelieved or ignored.The agriculture industry is not known for its transparency. But increasingly routine undercover investigations showing mistreatment of animals have inspired more public interest in how these operations run and what's really happening behind the barn doors. Despite the public outcry, the industry hasn't changed its behavior. . . .
The Idaho law didn't just try to stop undercover investigations; it attempted to silence the truth and truth-tellers - even whistleblowing employees. . . .
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below to read previous articles:
Animals Should be Treated as Humans: Gallup Poll
Plants' & Animals' Civil Rights - Antihumanism
Chimps Like Black Slaves: Animal Rights Lawsuit
President Obama's Czar Nominee Elevates Animals to Human Stature
American Trend: Fewer Children, More Animals/Pets
Pope Slams Environmentalists on Abortion