Ag-Gag laws in United States – social context, evolution and characteristics

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26485/SPE/2020/114/6

Keywords:

food safety, animal abuse, freedom of speech, food libel laws

Abstract

Background: This article focuses on evolution, features and social context of the so-called Ag-Gag laws in United States. These regulations, unheard-of in Europe and potentially consid­ered exotic in Poland, criminalize: recording video or taking pictures of agricultural facilities without the consent of the owner; entering an agricultural facility under false pretenses; mis­representing oneself in job applications with the intent to commit an unauthorized act; as well as requiring individuals to turn over any video footage of animal abuse to the police or sanitary authorities within 24 hours.

Research purpose: The research aims to analyze the Ag-Gag laws and to camine the impact of these laws on animal protection, food safety, environmental standards, and working conditions in agriculture, as well as on the scope and limits of public debate and freedom of speech shaping statements and representations concerning animal welfare and practices prevalent in the meat industry.

Methods: The author applies the historical and comparative approaches to present the develop­ment of those state and federal regulations that have labelled chosen activities of animal associa­tions and movements as terrorism, as well as of the so-called food libel laws which demonstrably obstructed or eliminated real criticism of the meat industry within the public domain. Next the author applies the formal and dogmatic approach to delve into the features and characteristics of Ag-Gag regulations across different states during the latest three decades.

Conclusions: In conclusion it is stated that the Ag-Gag laws have turned out be an effective tool for restraining the dynamically growing animal movement in United States, and an instrument for stonewalling public debate around standard of animal welfare at farms and slaughterhouses. At the same time, there is no evidence supporting the attainment of the purported and ostensible goal of the Ag-Gag laws, which was to improve food safety, environmental protection, and occupational safety in agriculture. The overriding and dominant result of the regulations in question has turned out to be an efficient chilling of the freedom of speech from its creation to its dissemination.

References

ALA. CODE § 6–5–620, 1993.

ALA. CODE., 1975 § 13A–11–150, 2019.

Animal Enterprise Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 102–346, 106 Stat. 928 (1992).

Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, Pub. L. No. 109–374, 120 Stat. 2652 (2006).

ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 3–113, E 1 1995.

ARK. CODE, § 16–18–113, 2017.

COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. § 35–31–101, 1996.

COLO. REV. STAT., § 18–9–208, 2015.

FLA. STAT § 865–065, 2 a 1995.

GA. CODE. ANN. § 2–16–1, 1995.

IDAHO CODE ANN. § 18–7042(1)(a)–(d) (West 2014).

IDAHO CODE, § 6–2001, 1995.

IOWA CODE ANN. § 717A.3A(1)(a) – (b) (West 2012).

KAN. STAT. ANN. § 47–1827 (West 2012).

LA. REV. STA. ANN. § 3:4501, 1995.

MISS. CODE. ANN, § 69–1–253(a), 1995.

MO. ANN. STAT. § 578.013 (West 2012).

MONT. CODE ANN. § 81–30–103(2)(d) (West 2012).

N.C. GEN. STAT., § 99–A1, 2015.

N.D. CENT. CODE ANN. § 12.1–21.1–02 (West 1991).

N.D. CENT. CODE, § 32–44–02, 1997.

NEB. REV. ST., § 28–1001–1020, 2013.

OHIO REV. CODE ANN., § 2307.81, 1996.

OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 2, § 3011–12, 1996.

REV. CODE WASH, § 9.06.060, 2015.

S.C. CODE ANN. § 47–21, 2012.

S.D. CODE ANN., § 20–10A–2, 1995.

TENN. CODE. ANN., § 50–1–3, 2013.

TEX, CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE. ANN., § 96.001–004, 1995.

UTAH CODE ANN. § 76–6–112(2)(a)–(c)(iii) (West 2012).

WYO. STAT., § 6–3–414, 2015.

Adam K.C., Shooting the messenger: a common-sense analysis of state Ag-Gag legislation under the First Amendment, Suffolk University Law Review 2012/45/4, s. 1129–1131.

Bederman D., Food libel: litigating scientific uncertainty in a constitutional twilight zone, DePaul Business Law Journal 1998/10/2, s. 191–230.

Bederman D., Of banana bill and veggie hate crimes: the constitutionality of agriculture disparagement statutes, Harvard Journal on Legislation 1997/34/2, s. 135–144.

Bohlen C., Animal rights case: terror or entrapment?, New York Times, 3 marzec 1989 r. (https://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/03/nyregion/animal-rights-case-terror-or-entrapment.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=3AC0DCAC37905A0946EA2334D1ABD601&gwt=pay; stan na 29.06.2019 r.).

Bollard L., Ag-Gag: the unconstitutionality of laws restricting undercover investigation on farms, Environmental Law Reporter 2012/42, s. 10974–10975.

Cain R.M., Food, inglorious food: food safety, food libel and free speech, American Business Law Journal 2012/49/2, s. 275–324.

Carson J.V., LaFree G., Dugan L., Terrorist and non-terrorist criminal attacks by environmental and animal rights groups in the United States, Terrorism and Violence 2012/24/2, s. 295–319.

Ceryes C., Heaney C.D., Ag-Gag laws: evolution, resurgence, and public health implications, New Solutions A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy 2019/28/4, s. 664–682.

Chen A.K., Marceau J.F., High value lies, ugly truths, and the First Amendment, Vanderbilt Law Review 2015/68/6, s. 1435–1452.

Cronin M., How the dairy industry strong-armed a state into silencing whistleblowers, The Dodo, 25 października 2015 r. (https://www.thedodo.com/ag-gag-idaho-dairy-industry-781488969. html; stan na 4.07.2019 r.).

Dave P., Idaho diary responds to undercover video showing cow abuse, Los Angeles Times, 19 luty 2014 (https://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-bettencourt-dairies-responds-ag-gag-20140219-story.html; stan na 3.07.2019 r.).

Delta G.B., Matssura J.H., Law of the internet, Aspen 2016, s. 960–985.

Fang L., Emails reveal dairy lobbyist crafted ‘Ag-Gag’ legislation outlawing pictures of farms, The Intercept, 28 maja 2015 r. (https://theintercept.com/2015/05/28/emails-reveal-dairy-lobbyist-authored-ag-gag-legislation-outlawing-pictures-farms/; stan na 5.07.2019 r.).

Fell M.S., Agricultural disparagement statutes: tainted beef, tainted speech, tainted law, Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal 1999/9/3, s. 981–988.

Flynn D., Idaho ‘Ag-Gag’ bill clears state senate, heads to house, Food Safety News, 20 luty 2014 r. (https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2014/02/idahos-senate-passed-ag-gag-bill-close -to-vote-in-house/; stan na 5.07.2019 r.).

Franklin B., Going to extremes for animal rights, New York Times, 30 sierpnia 1987 r. (https:// www.nytimes.com/1987/08/30/weekinreview/going-to-extremes-for-animal-rights. html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=55BCD9A4CD7166D034C6FE71C114F018&gwt=pay; stan na 29.06.2019 r.).

Galvin S.L., Herzog H.A., Ethical ideology, animal rights activism and attitude toward the treatment of animals, Ethics&Behaviour 1992/2/3, s. 141–149.

Gardner J., At the intersection of constitutional standing, congressional citizen-suits, and the humane treatment of animals: proposals to strengthen the animal welfare act, George Wa¬shington Law Review 2000/68/2, s. 330–360.

Gibson W., The animal rights war on biomedical research: a call to arms, Journal of Dental Research 1990/69/10, s. 1703–1704.

Gould L.D., Mad cows, offended emus, and old eggs: perishable product disparagement laws and free speech, Washington Law Review 1998/73/4, s. 1019–1050.

Grey S.H., A famine of words: changing the rules of expression in the food debates, First Amendment Studies 2014/48/1, s. 5–26.

Hill M., The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act: the need for a whistleblower exception, Case Western Reserve Law Review 2010/61/2, s. 649–678.

Hill M., United States v. Fullmer and the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act: ‘True Threats’ to Advocacy, Case Western Reserve Law Review 2011/61/3, s. 981–990.

Isern K.A., When is speech no longer protected by the first amendment: a plaintiff’s perspective of agricultural disparagement laws, DePaul Business Law Journal 1998/10/2, s. 233–257.

Jones E.G., Forbidden truth: talking about pesticides and food safety in the era of agriculture product disparagement laws, Brooklyn Law Review 2001/66/3, s. 823–858.

Kingery S., The agricultural iron curtain: ag-gag legislation and the threat to free speech, food safety, and animal welfare, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law 2012/17/1, s. 645–680.

Kniaz L., Animal liberation and the law: animals board the underground railroad, Buffalo Law Review 1995/43/3, s. 765–772.

Kohen S.L., What ever happened to veggie libel?: why plaintiffs are not using agricultural product disparagement statutes, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law 2011/16/1, s. 261–266.

Landfried J., Bound&gagged: potential First Amendment Challenges to ‘Ag-Gag’ laws, Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum 2013/23/2, s. 377–387.

Lichtblau E., F.B.I. watched activists groups, new files show, New York Times, 20 grudnia 2005 r. (https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/fbi-watched-activist-groups-new-files-show. html; stan na 28.06.2019 r.).

Liddick D., Eco-Terrorism: radical environmental and animal liberation movements, Westport 2006, s. 26–47.

Liebmann L.U., Fraud and first amendment protections of false speech: how United States v. Alvarez impacts constitutional challenges to Ag-Gag laws, Pace Environmental Law Re¬view 2014/31/2, s. 566–593.

Lyons J.M., The future implications for Ag-Gag laws, Seton Hall Law Review 2017/47/3, s. 915–934.

Lovitz D., Muzzling a movement, Herndon 2010, s. 35–56.

Marceau J.F., Ag-Gag past, present and future, Seattle University Law Review 2015/38/4, s. 1317–1344.

Marceau J.F., Leong N., Proposed bill will lead to more animal abuse, not less, Denver Post, 23 styczeń 2015 r. (https://www.denverpost.com/2015/01/23/proposed-bill-will-lead-to-mo¬re-animal-abuse-not-less/; stan na 3.07.2019 r.).

Martin A., Largest recall of ground beef is ordered, New York Times, 18 luty 2008 r. (https:// www.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/business/18recall.html; stan na 3.07.2019 r.).

Munoz A., Campus life: Michigan State; Animal rights raiders destroy years of work, New York Times, 8 marzec 1992 r. (https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic le=2287&context=sulr; stan na 29.06.2019 r.).

Negowetti N., Opening the barnyard door: transparency and the resurgence of ag-gag and veggie libel laws, Seattle University Law Review 2015/38/4, s. 1345–1398.

Oppel Jr. R.A., Taping of farm cruelty is becoming the crime, New York Times, 6 kwiecień 2013 r. (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/us/taping-of-farm-cruelty-is-becoming-the-crime.html; stan na 4.07.2019 r.).

Potter W., Green is the new red: an insider’s account of a social movement under siege, San Francisco 2011, s. 56–161.

Ravo N., U.S. Surgical admits spying on animal rights groups, New York Times, 26 stycznia 1989 r. (https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/nyregion/us-surgical-admits-spying-on-animal-rights-groups.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=D80F51ACEDE2A0436672E8939F126005& gwt=pay; stan na 30.06.2019 r.).

Semple M.W., Veggie libel meets free speech: a constitutional analysis of agriculture disparagement laws, Virginia Environmental Law Journal 1995–1996/15/2, s. 403–442.

Shea M., Punishing animal rights activists for animal abuse: rapid reporting and the new wave of ag-gag laws, Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 2015/48/3, s. 338–371.

Uyeki E.S., Holland L., Diffusion of pro-environment attitudes?, American Behavioral Scientist 2000/43/4, s. 646–662.

Wilson L., Ag-Gag Laws: A shift in the wrong direction for animal welfare on farms, Golden Gate University Law Review 2014/44/3, s. 311–335.

Auvil v. CBS “60 Minutes”, 800 F. Supp. 928, 930–31 (E.D. Wash. 1992).

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 352 (1974).

N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279–80 (1964).

Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey, 11 F. Supp. 2d 858 (N.D. Tex. 1998).

Downloads

Published

2020-06-01

How to Cite

Skowron, R. T. (2020). Ag-Gag laws in United States – social context, evolution and characteristics. Studia Prawno-Ekonomiczne, 114, 119–139. https://doi.org/10.26485/SPE/2020/114/6

Issue

Section

ARTICLES - THE LAW