{"id":755901,"date":"2019-01-10T10:40:22","date_gmt":"2019-01-10T15:40:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=755901"},"modified":"2019-01-10T10:40:22","modified_gmt":"2019-01-10T15:40:22","slug":"federal-court-strikes-down-iowas-ag-gag-law-that-blocked-undercover-investigations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=755901","title":{"rendered":"Federal Court Strikes Down Iowa\u2019s \u2018Ag-Gag\u2019 Law That Blocked Undercover Investigations"},"content":{"rendered":"\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t

Ag-Gag laws are an attempt by animal farming to hide the worst forms of animal cruelty in the US. This victory makes it clear that the government cannot protect these industries at the expense of our constitutional rights.<\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/blockquote>\n\n

WSKG:<\/strong> ‘A federal judge in Iowa says it\u2019s no longer a crime to go undercover at factory farms, slaughterhouses, and any other ag-related operations. The 2012 law was a clear violation of the First Amendment, the judge said. The Animal Legal Defense Fund, one of the plaintiffs in the case, called the ruling \u201ca win for free speech and animal protection.\u201d \u201cAg-Gag laws are a pernicious attempt by animal exploitation industries to hide some of the worst forms of animal abuse in the United States,\u201d ALDF Executive Director Stephen Wells said in a statement. \u201cToday\u2019s victory makes it clear that the government cannot protect these industries at the expense of our constitutional rights”…<\/em><\/p>\n

Iowa created the crime of \u201cagricultural production facility fraud\u201d shortly after several investigations \u201cbrought critical national attention to Iowa\u2019s agricultural industry,\u201d wrote James Gritzner, senior judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. Iowa is one of the nation\u2019s largest producers of livestock. Gritzner cited multiple undercover investigations of Iowan industrial farms, which found workers had thrown pigs against the floor, or burned off the beaks of hens without painkillers. At least some of those investigations were carried out by people who took the jobs in order to expose mistreatment of animals, Gritzner said…<\/em><\/p>\n

The question before the judge was whether lying \u2014 in this case, taking a job under false pretenses \u2014 is protected by the First Amendment. In the circumstances here, he ruled, lies are protected. \u201cTo some degree, the concept of constitutional protection for speech that is false may be disquieting,\u201d Gritzner wrote. However, he said, quoting the U.S. Supreme Court, \u201cthe Nation well knows that one of the costs of the First Amendment is that it protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace.\u201d The First Amendment protects false statements, said Gritzner, \u201cwhether they be investigative deceptions or innocuous lies”.’<\/em> SOURCE…<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

RELATED VIDEO:<\/strong><\/p>\n