Sanders wrote that “an essential element of the First Amendment is that speakers should not fear physical or economic retaliation simply because they think and publish.” Between 2015 and 2017, New South Wales passed several laws dealing with the intrusion of “vegan vigilantes” into farms and slaughterhouses in biosecurity laws. The 2019 Right to Agriculture Bill[8] added criminal penalties for those who damage property, release livestock, or incite others to commit “serious illegal entry.” [9] Other states have attempted to create “rapid reporting laws.” The fast-track bills appear animal-friendly on its face: they criminalize the possession of images of cruelty to animals and do not immediately hand them over to authorities within 24 or sometimes 48 hours. State laws that restrict photography or registration of farms without the owner`s consent are commonly referred to as “ag-gag” or “farm safety” laws. They have become a popular reaction to numerous undercover video posts recorded and published by animal rights activists. However, many laws have been challenged and court decisions have shaped the conversation. In recent weeks, three courts in the states of Arkansas, Iowa and Kansas have ruled on challenges to the current laws. This article will describe the context of each state`s law and the lawsuits that led to the decision, as well as an overview of the judgment itself. It is important to note that the First Amendment does not prohibit all regulation of free speech. Instead, the state must meet a standard called “rigorous review” to pass these types of laws.
Strict control is a high bar, and the government must prove that there is a compelling state interest in suppressing freedom of expression, that the law is necessary to protect that interest, and that the law is narrowly designed to prohibit as little as possible. The court acknowledged this, but noted that Kansas had not attempted to prove that its law met that burden. Accordingly, the Tenth District Court agreed with the District Court, which concluded that the relevant parts of the Act were unconstitutional and unenforceable. The term “ag-gag laws” refers to state and federal laws that criminalize taking photos or videos on livestock farms. The Center for Constitutional Rights and Defending Rights and Dissent defines ag-gag law as at least one of three elements: (1) a ban on photographing, recording videos, or other collectibles; 2) a prohibition on “making false statements in order to gain access to a pet store”; and 3) require individuals to report animal cruelty to authorities within a short period of time after witnessing the event. Secondly, the employment system. This subsection prohibits situations where a person “makes a false statement or misrepresentation in connection with an application or agreement for employment at a farm production facility” if the person “knows that the statement is false and makes the statement with intent to commit an act not authorized by the owner of the agricultural production facility: knowing that the act is not authorized. In that case, the Court applied the rigorous test of examination to language and concluded that the law was too broad and broad in scope to meet the requirements. Therefore, it was found to be unconstitutional. It is important to note, however, that the eighth circle specified what a “less restrictive means” might look like; Prohibition of “the only false declarations essential to a recruitment decision”.
The court refused to include those words in the statue, leaving it to the state legislature to do so if it deemed it necessary. As the courts have begun to rule on agricultural gag laws, state legislators have lost some of their enthusiasm for them. More than 40 agricultural gag laws have been proposed in 24 states. But since 2016, only two have been introduced. “Not a single farm gag law was introduced in 2018, which I think is quite telling,” Green said. States are monitoring the courts – and learning that these laws are unlikely to apply. According to critics, agricultural gag laws are dangerous because they threaten free speech and democracy, and target the livestock industry for special protection, while targeting whistleblowers to expose the dangers caused by businesses. Fifty-nine groups, including a variety of welfare, civil rights, environmental, food security, and First Amendment organizations, have publicly opposed agricultural gag laws. Some of these groups include the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), Amnesty International USA, Farm Sanctuary, Food and Water Watch, Food Chain Workers Alliance, Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association, International Labor Rights Forum, National Consumers League and United Farm Workers.
[41] On March 23, 2017, Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson signed the Arkansas Agricultural Gag Act after District Judge James Moody dismissed a lawsuit for constitutional violation. [25] The constitutionality of the Arkansas Agricultural Gag Act is currently being challenged by the Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Equality, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Food Chain Workers Alliance, as well as legal experts, academics, and 23 media organizations that have filed supporting briefs.