Ag-Gag Laws: Terrorists, Extreme Vegetarians, Crazy Vegans and Our Right to Freedom of Expression

Ally Bernstein

 Terrorists, extreme vegetarians, crazy vegans… is that what they are calling us now? That is certainly what Senator David Hinkins, the Sponsor of Utah’s bill H.B. 187 that prohibits trespassing, photographing, or filming at agriculture operations said about the people opposing the bill. In defense of the bill, he argues the bill is aimed at “the vegetarian people” and “crazy vegans” who “are trying to kill the animal industry” referring to animal welfarists and those concerned with dredging out the truth about the agriculture industry as “terrorists.”

Sorry Senator Hinkins, but I don’t think that is what us “vegetarian people” are doing. Last time I checked, the vegetarian, vegan, and animal welfare movements were hinged on notions and principles such as cruelty free, environmentally friendly, and a reduction of harm and suffering for all species. The advancement of our movement has never been achieved by terrorist tactics such as fear inducing threats, punishment for exposing the truth, and suppressing people’s rights. It is a far stretch of the imagination to compare the animal welfare movement to a terrorist movement considering our mission is to end the suffering of species beyond our own.

But I do think that by using legislation to instill fear of punishment for wanting to expose the truth about the unfathomable horrors taking place on industrial farms is similar to what terrorists do. They instill fear amongst members of their communities and punish those who fight against them or expose them for what they are. Criminalizing activity that is meant to expose the truth about how animals are treated, inform the public about how the meat that they consume is produced, and spark an informed debate about the out of hand agriculture practices in our country is an infringement of our right to free speech and freedom expression.

Lewis Bollard, a law student from Yale, brilliantly argues in his article titled “Ag-Gag: The Unconstitutionality of Laws Restricting Undercover Investigations on Farms,” that these laws if subject to strict scrutiny would not pass muster and therefore should be held unconstitutional. His paper begins with the legislative history of the Ag-gag laws and how they are a result of a series of investigative videos that were aired on News channels exposing the despicable agricultural practices taking place unbeknownst to the public.

Bollard meticulously analyzes some of the seminole cases involving freedom of press and free speech. He points out that first amendment protections should be afforded to those seeking out the truth by means of news gathering, emphasizing the courts words that,  “without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of press could be eviscerated.”

The main crux of the argument lies in his analysis that Ag-Gag laws should be subject to heightened scrutiny for 5 reasons:

(1) they are not generally applicable laws

(2) enforcement will single out, and disproportionately burden, those engaged in First Amendment activities,

(3) they criminalize speech about affiliations and identity,

(4) their enforcement will affect conduct “immediately related” to expression, and

(5) they punish false statements without proof of harm

After a detailed explanation of the courts rulings in similar cases and a thorough analysis of the reasoning in each of the cases, Bollard concludes that the carefully drafted Ag-Gag laws skirt all other legitimate purpose and have only “one possible application of law: to penalize undercover investigators, and suppress the expression critical of animal agriculture.” And even more importantly, the article notes that “courts have recognized the treatment of animals at agricultural operations is a matter of public concern” and “the Ag-Gag laws will stop informed debate about a matte of public concern.”

By enacting Ag-Gag laws and stripping us of the the First Amendment protections, are those of us trying to expose the truth being forced to live in fear of punishment? That is what it looks like in States where legislatures have passed Ag-Gag laws are doing. Are we to be labeled terrorists and crazies simply for participating in a movement that promotes peace and an end to suffering? Terrorists force people to be quiet by using fear of punishment to protect their heinous practices and get what they want…. Not vegetarians, vegans, and animal welfarists.

8 Responses

  1. Thanks for posting your thoughts and Lewis Bollard’s award-winning essay on this important subject, Ally.

    By demonizing, threatening, gagging, and punishing people who dare dissent from the status quo, these bills definitely stifle free speech and are thus unconstitutional. The bills also violate consumers’ right to know the truth about the torture of animals whose flesh they are buying at the meat counter, butcher shop, and restaurants.

    I suspect British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli would have defended as perfectly sane those of us who seek to expose and outlaw abusive practices toward animals. As he put it: “Never apologize for showing feeling, my friend; remember that when you do so you apologize for truth.”

  2. Thanks, Ally, for this post, and Lewis Bollard’s article. Another good read for background is Dara Lovitz’s _Muzzling a Movement_, on the AETA (the uber ag-gag).

    I’d also add that in the current climate, with the NDAA, drone war, the treatment of Bradley Manning, etc., logical argument about any supposedly “anti-terrorist” measure is stifled under a lot of fear rhetoric. For example the group “Food not Bombs”, whose members cook vegetarian meals and give them away free in public parks, has been called “terrorist”, and subject to city ordinances in Florida prohibiting giving away food. What kind of world is this? Lately it seems that fear and anger is stronger in the US than the kind of feelings that Disraeli was talking about, feelings of compassion and justice.

  3. So, the argument or justification was, supposedly, to pit private property rights against free speech, and the public’s right to know?

  4. First-rate work by Bernstein and Bollard. All honor to the valiant activists who go undercover to expose horrors beyond conception, often at the cost of their psychic well-being.

    The unspeakable Mr Hinkins achieves a kind of hideous sublimity, so perfectly does he represent the cretinous style in American politics ( to adapt a phrase). If I have time, I’ll have to track down his email to ask him if he agrees that: (a) Obama is a crypto-Maoist-Muslim; (b) that the ACLU and Planned Parenthood are but 2 manifestations of the worldwide Trotskyist conspiracy; and that (c) global warming is a stupendous fraud perpetrated by a well-concealed alliance of Free Masons and Mau-Mau revolutionaries bent of destroying the godly glory of American capitalism. If Hinkinism, in all its guises, weren’t so incalculably malignant, it might almost be entertaining as burlesque of a particularly seedy variety.


  5. Ag-gag laws are what’s truly crazy. Heaven forbid Americans have an educated choice about what they eat and buy.

  6. […] thanks to Animal Blawg for permission to republish this post, which appeared on their site on October 27, […]

  7. It is the AG-Gag law that drove me to cut meat and dairy out of my diet altogether. What are they so desperate to hide? It actually does more harm than good to these industries once consumers realize there is no transparency and they must be trying to hide something.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: