Appeals Court Drives Another Stake Into The Heart Of Idaho's 'Ag-Gag' Law

from the not-even-a-close-call-on-the-First-Amendment-side dept

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a 2015 decision finding Idaho's "ag-gag" law unconstitutional. Despite the protestations of legislators and the state itself, the court finds the law prohibiting people from obtaining access to farms and other agricultural entities under false pretenses a violation of protected speech.

As the lower court pointed out, the law would have made Upton Sinclair's expose of the meatpacking industry illegal. The upshot of Sinclair's book was significant changes to food and employee safety laws. Without the efforts of whistleblowers this law clearly targeted, the safety of the public -- both consumers and employees -- would be negatively impacted.

The Appeals Court finds little to like about the state's arguments the law is meant to protect the privacy of agricultural entities. Instead, it points out statements made by legislators -- as well as the law's wording -- indicates the state intended to block speech critical of these entities. The decision [PDF] highlights comments made by legislators during the passage of the law which show the true impetus for the law's creation.

Lawmakers also discussed damage caused by investigative reporting: “One of the things that bothers me a lot about the undercover investigation [at the dairy], and the fact that there’s videos, well, we’re being tried and persecuted and prosecuted in the press.” Other legislators used similar language demonstrating hostility toward the release of these videos, and one supporter of the legislation dubbed animal rights groups as “terrorists” who “use media and sensationalism to attempt to steal the integrity of the producer and their reputation.” One legislator stated that the dairy industry’s reason behind the legislation was “[t]hey could not allow fellow members of the industry to be persecuted in the court of public opinion.” Another described these videos as used to “publicly crucify a company” and “as a blackmail tool.” Finally, one legislator indicated that if the video had not been published, she did not “think this bill would ever have surfaced.”

The video mentioned here was released in 2012 by a group called Mercy for Animals. An activist involved with the group obtained a job at a dairy farm and secretly filmed employees abusing livestock. As a result of the video's release, the dairy fired the abusive employees and instituted animal welfare protocols. Legislators -- pushed and prodded by dairy lobbyists -- went a completely different route, deciding the exposure of animal abuse should result in punishment of those documenting the abuse, rather than the abusers themselves.

As the Appeals Court points out, the law was narrowly crafted to prevent whistleblowing and criticism of activities performed by employees of a certain industry. As such, there's no way the law can even be considered a close call in terms of the Constitution.

Guided by Alvarez, we conclude that subsection (a)’s misrepresentation provision regulates speech protected by the First Amendment. The targeted speech—a false statement made in order to access an agricultural production facility—cannot on its face be characterized as “made to effect a fraud or secure moneys or other valuable considerations.” Alvarez, 567 U.S. at 723 (plurality opinion). Nor can the misrepresentation provision be characterized as simply proscribing conduct. Like the statute in Alvarez, subsection (a) “seeks to control and suppress all false statements [related to access] in almost limitless times and settings. And it does so entirely without regard to whether the lie was made for the purpose of material gain.” Id. at 722–23 (plurality opinion). Unlike lying to obtain records or gain employment—which are associated with a material benefit to the speaker—lying to gain entry merely allows the speaker to cross the threshold of another’s property, including property that is generally open to the public. The hazard of this subsection is that it criminalizes innocent behavior, that the overbreadth of this subsection’s coverage is staggering, and that the purpose of the statute was, in large part, targeted at speech and investigative journalists.

Idaho’s argument that “the material gain to the person telling the lie is the entry to the property,” is not supported by any authority and does not establish how entry onto the property and material gain are coextensive. Under the statute, any misrepresentation to gain entry could net a criminal prosecution. Take, for example, a teenager who wants to impress his friends by obtaining a highly sought after reservation at an exclusive pop-up restaurant that is open to the public. If he were to call the restaurant and finagle a reservation in the name of his mother, a well-known journalist, that would be a misrepresentation. If the restaurant offers up a reservation on the basis of the mother’s notoriety, granting a “license” to enter the premises and sit at a table, the teenager would be subject to punishment of up to one year in prison, a fine not to exceed $5,000, or both.

The court then goes on to point out the fallacy of the state's argumentative logic: if the state desired only to protect private business owners from unwanted intrusion, it already has a law on the books to handle this.

Even assuming Idaho has a compelling interest in regulating property rights and protecting its farm industry, criminalizing access to property by misrepresentation is not “actually necessary” to protect those rights. If, as Idaho argues, its real concern is trespass, then Idaho already has a prohibition against trespass that does not implicate speech in any way. If instead, as a number of the legislators made clear and the dairy lobby underscored, the statute was intended to quash investigative reporting on agricultural production facilities, then the speech aspect of the statute prohibiting misrepresentations is even more problematic. The focus of the statute to avoid the “court of public opinion” and treatment of investigative videos as “blackmail” cannot be squared with a content-neutral trespass law.

Allowing the law to stay on the books would encourage selective prosecution. Whistleblowers capturing evidence of abusive behavior by farm employees would be targeted for fines and jail time while the proverbial teenager described in the court's analogy would be left unperturbed. The state hardly even pretends the restriction is content-neutral -- an argument that might have been more successfully raised if legislators hadn't undercut it so severely while debating the bill.

The court also notes the law is broadly-written, which could lead to even more criminalization of First Amendment-protected activity.

We are also unsettled by the sheer breadth of this subsection given the definitions of “agricultural production facility” and “agricultural production.” Id. § 18-7042(2)(a), (b). Applying these definitions, the subsection reaches misrepresentations not only in the context of a large-scale dairy facility or cattle feedlot, but also grocery stores, garden nurseries, restaurants that have an herb garden or grow their own produce, llama farms that produce wool for weaving, beekeepers, a chicken coop in the backyard, a field producing crops for ethanol, and hardware stores, to name a few.

[...]

The reach of subsection (a) is so broad that it gives rise to suspicion that it may have been enacted with an impermissible purposeOur suspicion is not eased after reading the legislative history. The record reflects that the statute was partly motivated to protect members of the agricultural industry from “persecut[ion] in the court of public opinion,” and journalists who use exposés to “publicly crucify a company.” Although, for Equal Protection Clause purposes, we need not decide whether animus motivated this subsection, we do not ignore that a vocal number of supporters were less concerned with the protection of property than they were about protecting a target group from critical speech, which adds to our skepticism that the provision survives the “exacting scrutiny” required under Alvarez.

The court then dismantles the state's argument that creating recordings is not First Amendment-protected activity because it is (somehow) "not speech."

We easily dispose of Idaho’s claim that the act of creating an audiovisual recording is not speech protected by the First Amendment. This argument is akin to saying that even though a book is protected by the First Amendment, the process of writing the book is not. Audiovisual recordings are protected by the First Amendment as recognized “organ[s] of public opinion” and as a “significant medium for the communication of ideas.”

[...]

As with the Misrepresentation Clauses, Idaho asserts that the Recordings Clause protects both property and privacy interests. Even assuming a compelling government interest, Idaho has not satisfied the narrow tailoring requirement because the statute is both under-inclusive and overinclusive.

This is what happens when you craft a bill specifically designed to target one type of speech legislators (and their favored industries) don't like: you create a law soaked in cognitive dissonance. The court digs further into the law's inconsistencies:

Prohibiting only “audio or video recordings,” but saying nothing about photographs, is suspiciously under-inclusive. City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 51 (“[T]hat a regulation of speech may be impermissibly underinclusive is firmly grounded in basic First Amendment principles.”). Why the making of audio and video recordings of operations would implicate property or privacy harms, but photographs of the same content would not, is a mystery. This distinction defies the old adage that “a picture is worth a thousand words.”

Nor has Idaho explained how limiting the filming of operations, but nothing else, effectuates its interests better than eliminating all audio and video recordings at agricultural production facilities. Presumably, for example, an unauthorized recording of the agricultural production facility’s buildings would still implicate Idaho’s concerns about property, and the unauthorized filming of an employee birthday party would implicate concerns about privacy. Without some legitimate explanation, we are left to conclude that Idaho is singling out for suppression one mode of speech—audio and video recordings of agricultural operations—to keep controversy and suspect practices out of the public eye. Reed, 135 S. Ct. at 2229 (content-based laws lend themselves to use for “invidious, thought-control purposes”). The district court aptly noted that “[t]he recording prohibition gives agricultural facility owners veto power, allowing owners to decide what can and cannot be recorded, effectively turning them into state-backed censors able to silence unfavorable speech about their facilities.”

The entire law isn't overturned, however. The Appeals Court finds two aspects of it are still acceptable. It is still illegal to gain access to company records under false pretenses as well as to gain employment through misrepresentation. The court doesn't find these to be violations of rights, but rather a sensible way to allow companies to protect proprietary information that might benefit competitors if released to the public.

Whistleblowers already employed by agricultural companies are still protected under the Constitution. Investigative reporters who film agricultural operations while undercover are still protected as well, although they won't be able to seek employment under false pretenses to obtain recordings. This may make it more difficult to perform investigative journalism, but it won't make it impossible. The law as written did nothing more than give one industry an easy way to prevent criticism of its actions, policies, and employee behavior. Too bad the legislators it prodded into action undercut the state's arguments before it even had a chance to make them. Unfortunately, the only lesson the ag industry may have learned from this courtroom debacle is to buy a better brand of politician -- one that won't immediately out the law's intent during legislative discussions.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2018 @ 4:04pm

    WHAT is different about "ag-gag" than the JUST PRIOR PIECE in which The Corporatist advocates total fascist control?

    Just apply this principle to Twitter / Google / Facebook. Here's an explicit censoring statute -- which prohibits damaging corporations -- and yet it's just been thrown out on COMMON LAW PRINCIPLES.

    Clearly, just because you are on someone's property -- or web-site forum, especially if for the very purposes of public discourse -- does NOT give corporations absolute control over imaging, journalism, or stating your opinion.

    By the way: given The Corporatist's one in a hundred record at predicting cases, I will be QUITE surprised if my views (entirely) fail. Dismayed, too, of course. But if Masnick "wins" you lose TOO.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 10 Jan 2018 @ 4:11pm

      Re: WHAT is different about "ag-gag" than the JUST PRIOR PIECE in which The Corporatist advocates total fascist control?

      WHAT is different about "ag-gag" than the JUST PRIOR PIECE

      The ag-gag law attempts to leverage the law against what the court acknowledges is protected speech in an effort to censor people who would criticize a given company within the agriculture industry. That is hardly the same thing as Twitter booting a dumbass from the platform for being a dumbass, but otherwise doing nothing to stop him from expressing himself however he wants. Learn the difference, you stooge.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2018 @ 4:26pm

      Re: WHAT is different about "ag-gag" than the JUST PRIOR PIECE in which The Corporatist advocates total fascist control?

      umm There's a bit of a difference between posting/publishing information ABOUT a company, and posting information ON a companies property (physical or virtual).
      If you post an article/rant/ w/e on a companies bulletin board they are free to take it down. Just like google/twitter/facebook are all free to refuse to host your content on their sites.
      What they are prohibited from doing is interfering with your host of the information on platforms you fully own.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2018 @ 4:55pm

      Re: WHAT is different about "ag-gag" than the JUST PRIOR PIECE in which The Corporatist advocates total fascist control?

      Is the corporation committing horrendous acts against animals?
      I think you have rights relative to exposing same, it is not illegal to do so - just do not do it on their website because they can simply take it down.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2018 @ 5:13pm

      Re: WHAT is different about "ag-gag" than the JUST PRIOR PIECE in which The Corporatist advocates total fascist control?

      Whoops, looks like someone doesn’t understand the difference between a private business and the government. Kinda ironic for a self described “common law” fan.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        David, 11 Jan 2018 @ 1:10am

        Re: Re: WHAT is different about "ag-gag" than the JUST PRIOR PIECE in which The Corporatist advocates total fascist control?

        You are defaitist. Trump will win the battle against irony.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2018 @ 8:59pm

      Re: WHAT is different about "ag-gag" than the JUST PRIOR PIECE in which The Corporatist advocates total fascist control?

      Suck that agricultural corporate cock, blue! Good boy. Gobble, gobble!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bergman (profile), 11 Jan 2018 @ 5:03pm

      Re: WHAT is different about "ag-gag" than the JUST PRIOR PIECE in which The Corporatist advocates total fascist control?

      By your 'logic' you would not be able to prevent me from painting graffiti on your house. Fail.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2018 @ 4:12pm

    "It is still illegal to gain access to company records under false pretenses as well as to gain employment through misrepresentation."

    That's way should be! First Amendment does NOT protect anyone from FALSEHOODS. --I guess one might yet argue "necessity" in extreme cases, but that's for juries to decide.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 10 Jan 2018 @ 4:16pm

      Re: "It is still illegal to gain access to company records under false pretenses as well as to gain employment through misrepresentation."

      First Amendment does NOT protect anyone from FALSEHOODS.

      Patently untrue. I can say “Mike Masnick licks goats”, and so long as I do not try to present that obvious lie as a factual statement, the First Amendment protects my right to say “Mike Masnick licks goats”.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2018 @ 5:46pm

        Re: Re: "It is still illegal to gain access to company records under false pretenses as well as to gain employment through misrepresentation."

        Your gonna change your name to goats aren't you?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 10 Jan 2018 @ 5:48pm

          Re: Re: Re: "It is still illegal to gain access to company records under false pretenses as well as to gain employment through misrepresentation."

          Nah, I’ll leave the goat-licking to Mike.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2018 @ 6:14pm

          Re: Re: Re: "It is still illegal to gain access to company records under false pretenses as well as to gain employment through misrepresentation."

          * You're

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      btr1701 (profile), 11 Jan 2018 @ 11:17am

      Re: "It is still illegal to gain access to company records under false pretenses as well as to gain employment through misrepresentation."

      > That's way should be! First Amendment does NOT protect
      > anyone from FALSEHOODS.

      Baloney. I can state that the sun rises in the west and that the moon landing was faked and that's completely protected speech, even though it's not true.

      (Or is it?)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    SteveMB (profile), 10 Jan 2018 @ 4:23pm

    there's no way the law can even be considered a close call in terms of the Constitution

    What this country needs is a provision for judicial ruling that goes beyond "un-Constitutional" (but within the realm where it could be an honest mistake) and encompasses "deliberate violation of the responsible lawmakers' oath to uphold the Constitution", with sanctions (three strikes and you're out, perhaps) for at least the sponsors and perhaps everyone who voted for a blatantly un-Constitutional law.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      btr1701 (profile), 11 Jan 2018 @ 11:19am

      Re:

      > What this country needs is a provision for judicial
      > ruling that goes beyond "un-Constitutional" and
      > encompasses "deliberate violation of the responsible
      > lawmakers' oath to uphold the Constitution", with
      > sanctions (three strikes and you're out, perhaps) for at
      > least the sponsors and perhaps everyone who voted for a
      > blatantly un-Constitutional law.

      Problem is you'd have to amend the Constitution to give the Judicial Branch that power or you'd be guilty of the very thing you're trying to punish.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2018 @ 6:19pm

    There seems to be a lot of 'blame the middleman' going around. Blame the ISPs. Blame the web platforms. Blame the whistleblowers. Blame the reporters.

    Don't go after the people actually doing the wrong thing.

    Is it because the middlemen are easier to find and prosecute? Is it because we'd prefer these things be swept under the rug?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2018 @ 8:29am

      Re:

      Some times it is the "middleman" doing the wrong, but you knew that.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John85851 (profile), 11 Jan 2018 @ 10:00am

      Re:

      In some cases, the middlemen have deeper pockets. This is why people choose to sue Google or Facebook for user-generated content instead of actually going after the user or website that created the content.

      And, yes, this is the idea behind Europe's "right to be forgotten": it's easier to ask Google to delist an offending website than it is to actually contact the website ask them to correct or update the content.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Tu Thi Yen (profile), 10 Jan 2018 @ 6:27pm

    Is this really what it says?

    I hope it doesn't thought, hopefully it wont. But otherwise, it sucks

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    I Love Capitalism, 10 Jan 2018 @ 7:29pm

    So?

    As the lower court pointed out, the law would have made Upton Sinclair's expose of the meatpacking industry illegal.

    Isn't that kind of the point?

    The upshot of Sinclair's book was significant changes to food and employee safety laws.

    And a reduction in profits. Sad.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2018 @ 8:40pm

    Think of the llamas

    First they came for the llama farms, and I said nothing. . . .

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 10 Jan 2018 @ 9:41pm

    Note that this only protect gathering footage. It does NOT protect from defamation claims arising from deceptively editing the videos afterward like the scum that attacks Planned Parenthood does.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.