I wrote my state legislator!! It was my first time. We'll see how it goes.
Basically, A bill was pass yesterday in the Utah house that states it illegal to record any video, sound or images anything on a farm without consent of the owner. The fear is that the recordings might be used to make media messages (or propaganda) to hurt the farming industry in issues f cruelty to animals. Keep in mind the law does not say you cannot speak out against problems on farms -- it cuts it off at the source! It's pretty aggressive, and I think it is a dangerous place for Utah to go. If I want to stand across a the road and take a video of corn-fed cows as their stomachs implode from ulcers (which release toxins into the meat) I should be able to, right? (Just kidding ... kind of) I should also have the right to use that footage to make a public service announcement if I think that is needed. This might be an extreme example, but you get the point.
For the record, I feel pretty passionately about laws regarding the food industry. I am against any laws that specifically protects the farming industry and prevents citizens and activists from asking questions about our country's food supply. Several states have laws that make it illegal to criticize the farming industry, and I think this leads toward a lot of other nutritional and health problems in our country. Hopefully, I (we) can take a stand to help Utah from heading down this slippery slope that could leave our community speechless and unempowered.
If you are in Utah, please feel free to pass these arguments and thoughts on to your local state legislator. The bill passed in the house after some debate and is now moving to the senate, so act fast. :)
Find your senator here (http://www.utahsenate.org/map.shtml)
So, here it is. This is how I organized my thoughts and tried to get to the roots of the legal issues involved.
Dear Senator Stephenson,
This is my first time writing to a legislator. Please let me know if I did it right, and how I can be more active in the process now and in the future. Thank you for your hard work and service to our district. :)
I would like to ask you to vote no on H.B.187 -- the bill about surveillance on farms. Specifically, this bill “provides that a person is guilty of agricultural operation interference if the person records an image of, or sound from, an agricultural operation under certain circumstances.”
This bill is excessive and establishes detailed law against actions that are already unlawful. Specifically, laws against trespassing, libel and slander are already in place at the state and federal level that protect all businesses and private citizens. It also appears that this bill, if passed, would add to the group of laws around the country that show an unnecessary and inappropriate government support of the agriculture industry.
I have included a list of other problems with the bill and how it might negatively impact healthy activism and healthy living in Utah and around the country.
1. Conversation on the house floor indicated that this bill is necessary to protect farms from People for the Ethical treatment of Animals or other animal focused organizations. But I am worried about this law because it also bars research and dissemination of information by people focusing on human health issues and the effects of animal products on people. There is a loud and very real conversation about our nations’ health and the relationship between chronic illness and our nations’ food supply. We should be fighting to protect this conversation and encourage a nation of informed citizens and empowered consumers. Laws that specifically limit research and investigation of agriculture are dangerous to an informed society.
2. Utah should not get involved with food industry defamation litigation. Many states protect the rights of farmers at the silencing of the people, and H.B. 187 could pave the way to more drastic laws that handicap the public in other issues relating to food handling and agricultural health.
3. The law does not include an exception to employees and other persons who might be able to serve the public by blowing the whistle on dangerous business practices. What happens to someone who is trying to alert the pubic or the authorities to an actual and real health risk? Or to dangerous and real unethical treatment of animals. We do not want to write laws that scare people away from making hard -- but good choices -- in regards to the common good.
4. The conversation surrounding the bill on the house floor uses aggressive and war-like language, such as the phrase “Terrorists,” to scare citizens and government leaders into paying attention to something that serves only a small group of people at the sacrifice of civil rights.
5. The farming industry in Utah does not deserve stronger protection than the owners of other industries. Slander and libel laws exist to protect everyone and especially private citizens and business from defamation. Any specific laws needed to protect farmers should be enforced only at the point that libel or sander has actually occurred. This bill is currently written to punish the intent to do harm, which is not covered by the supreme courts definition of libel and slander in communication law.
6. There are huge questions in this country about the uses of growth hormones and antibiotics in farming. We should not be passing laws that make it harder to continue to investigate -- sometimes on a grassroots level -- these issues and concerns. These conversations are not based on issues of animal cruelty, and yet the legal investigation into these issues could be damaged by this house bill, which -- in trying to silence the animal rights activists -- could silence other groups as well. Let’s look at the film Food, Inc, for example, This 2008 film investigated the farming industry in America and focused on its health affects on people and NOT on issues of animal cruelty. This film has motivated a new generation of activists and gardeners who are focused on the health of the American people. We do not want to pass laws that limit open-minded and powerful dialogues about societal change and human health.
In closing, let’s allow the existing laws regarding trespassing, surveillance, libel and slander to continue to control this problem of agricultural interference. If someone trespasses to obtain video or recordings on a farm or anywhere, they are guilty under trespassing laws. If they get footage or images in a legal way, they would be prosecuted based on the messages they disseminate and not based on obtaining the images alone. Any media messages disseminated about Utah agriculture would be deemed legal or illegal based on defamation laws established by the supreme court.
If the group of existing laws is not doing its job, we should then write inclusive bills that protect all Utah industries and not only special-interest groups and industries.
Thank you, and again, please let me know how I can help,
Jill Fellow
337 E. Eastview Drive
Alpine, UT 84004
(801) 735-7416
--
Jill Fellow
801.735.7416
owneroftheband.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment