First Amendment to the United States Constitution

by Joe Loria

“Please, Note there is a video at the end of this post. however it is very graphic”

**According to the Idaho Statesman, Idaho has been ordered to pay nearly $250,000 in legal fees for a case, that could have been avoided.**

In 2012, Mercy For Animals released findings of an undercover investigation at Bettencourt Dairies in Hansen, Idaho, where workers were exposed stomping, beating, dragging, and otherwise torturing the cows.

In response to the investigation, the Idaho Dairymen’s Association drafted and sponsored an ag-gag bill, which was passed by the Idaho legislature and signed by Governor Otter in February 2014. This law created a new crime: “interference with agricultural production.” It essentially criminalized undercover investigations on factory farms.

A federal judge overturned this dangerous and un-American law last August for violating the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. U.S. district judge B. Lynn Winmill stated in his ruling:

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 coalition of nonprofit groups that challenged the law has now been awarded $249,875.08 in legal fees. Clearly ag-gag laws are not only unconstitutional, but a huge waste of taxpayer resources. Idaho is now appealing the court ruling, which will result in an even greater waste of taxpayer money.

The governor and lawmakers of Idaho should be ashamed. They clearly don’t value their hard working constituents and will accept money from big corporations at the taxpayers’ expense.

We urge Idaho lawmakers to focus their efforts on improving animal welfare and rewarding the brave whistleblowers who uncover criminal activity in the state’s agricultural operations.

This ruling should also be a wake-up call to the meat, dairy, and egg industries that attempt to keep consumers in the dark about where their food comes from will not be tolerated.

For more information, please visit NoAgGag.com.

VERY GRAPHIC – This is just one of Mercy For Animals Video’s taken in an Ohio Dairy Farm (not the video in question)

Uploaded on 25 May 2010

Hidden camera video secretly shot by an investigator with Mercy For Animals at an Ohio dairy farm reveals shocking, malicious cruelty to calves and cows. The video, recorded between April and May, 2010, shows dairy farm workers beating cows in the face with crowbars, stabbing them with pitchforks, breaking their tails, and punching, throwing, and kicking calves.

Find out what you can do to help at:
http://mercyforanimals.org/ohdairy/

News Link: http://www.mfablog.org/study-number-of-vegans-in-britain-up-360

A Houston man and woman were indicted Wednesday for producing “animal crush” videos, the first federal case brought under the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010, which was passed after the Supreme Court ruled that a previous version of the law violated the First Amendment.

The U.S. attorney in southern Texas charged Ashley Nicole Richards, 22, and Brent Justice, 51, who are already facing state animal cruelty charges, with producing eight videos that allegedly involve the torture and killing of puppies, chickens and kittens, according a release from the federal prosecutor’s office. Richards and Justice face five counts of animal crush charges and two obscenity charges.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney’s office of Southern Texas confirmed the Houston case is the first in the nation brought under the revised law.

In April 2010, the Supreme Court decided 8-1 in U.S. v. Stevens to strike down Section 48 of Title 18 of U.S. Code as unconstitutional.

The code, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion of the court, penalized “anyone who knowingly ‘creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty,’ if done ‘for commercial gain’ in interstate or foreign commerce.”

That case involved a man who sold videos of dogfighting and of dogs attacking other animals. He challenged his indictment on the grounds that Section 48 violated the First Amendment.

Though the government argued the code was necessary for cases of “animal crush” and animal fighting videos, the court held “a law may be invalidated as overboard if ‘a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional.’” The court, therefore, did not discuss whether animal crush videos were a special case that could warrant an exception to the First Amendment.

“We … need not and do not decide whether a statute limited to crush videos or other depictions of extreme animal cruelty would be constitutional,” Roberts wrote for the court.

The court invalidated the law altogether as overboard, prompting Congress in September of that year to pass the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010, which specifically prohibited animal crush videos and defined them as “any photograph, motion picture, film, video or digital recording, or electronic image that:

(1) depicts actual conduct in which one or more living non-human mammals, birds, reptiles, or amphibians is intentionally crushed, burned, drowned, suffocated, impaled, or otherwise subjected to serious bodily injury;

(2) is obscene.

The “and obscene” provision would be key if the statute were challenged anew, said First Amendment expert and University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone.

“[Congress] passed this very complicated law that does not add anything to the scope of what is criminal,” Stone told POLITICO. “So as long as we stipulate that the material has to be obscene to be prosecuted under the statute, then why don’t you just prosecute you under the obscenity statute?”

The reference to obscenity also appears to limit the statute’s application in several ways, including limiting it to videos that are sexual in nature.

Stone believes that if the case were to be brought to the highest court, the question at issue would be whether there is a legitimate reason to distinguish this type of obscenity from others.

With free speech restrictions, the government cannot constitutionally pick and choose what type of speech to restrict based solely on its content, as established in the hate speech case R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul.

Stone compares the animal crush statute to a law creating higher penalties for purveyors of homosexual obscenity as opposed to non-homosexual obscenity – the government in both cases would need to show why the distinction serves a societal necessity.

Stone said in defence of the law, as in the comparable issue of child pornography, sometimes the government punishes selling depictions of something cruel to take away the incentive for individuals to commit the cruelty in order to profit off of it.

The animal crush statute carries a maximum penalty of seven years in prison; the obscenity statute carries up to five.

News Link:-http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/11/feds-bring-first-case-under-new-animal-crush-video-150700.html?hp=r2