{"id":767456,"date":"2022-03-16T08:36:22","date_gmt":"2022-03-16T12:36:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=767456"},"modified":"2022-03-16T08:54:29","modified_gmt":"2022-03-16T12:54:29","slug":"federal-court-strikes-down-iowas-second-ag-gag-law-as-unconstitutional","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=767456","title":{"rendered":"#NoAgGag: Federal court strikes down Iowa\u2019s second \u2018ag-gag\u2019 law as unconstitutional"},"content":{"rendered":"\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t

In the past 10 years, Iowa\u2019s state legislators have passed four separate laws intended to discourage activists from obtaining jobs at agricultural facilities for the purpose of conducting undercover investigations into the treatment of animals.<\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/blockquote>\n\n

CLARK KAUFFMAN:<\/strong> Iowa\u2019s second attempt to criminalize unauthorized surveillance inside agricultural facilities has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge. \u201cIowa seeks to protect private property rights by singling out for punishment, at least in part, trespassers based on their disfavored viewpoint of agriculture,\u201d U.S. District Judge Stephanie Rose said in her ruling Monday, adding that it\u2019s precisely this intent that other courts have found to be unconstitutional.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cThe state of Iowa may not single out individuals for special punishment based on their critical viewpoint of agricultural practices,\u201d Rose ruled. \u201cIt is the proper province of the legislature to determine whether specific facilities \u2014 such as agricultural facilities, nuclear power plants, military bases, or other sensitive buildings \u2014 are entitled to special legal protections. However, the First Amendment does not allow those protections to be based on a violator\u2019s viewpoint”…<\/em><\/p>\n

The plaintiffs in the case argued the law discriminated based on viewpoint because it \u201csingles out a specific industry for favoritism and seeks to silent critics of that industry.\u201d The state argued otherwise and said that while some legislators had talked of the need to silence animal rights activists and critics of meatpacking plants, others spoke of the larger need to protect private property and biosecurity.<\/em><\/p>\n

Rose rejected the state\u2019s argument, noting that \u201ccrucially, the stated purposes of the law \u2014 private property rights and biosecurity \u2014 would also be implicated for deceptive trespassers without the intent to harm the facility \u2026 Defendants offer no explanation why the strict biosecurity protocols discussed by some of the legislators are not at risk by a benign or benevolent deceptive trespasser.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Rose ruled that because the law criminalizes deception to gain access to agricultural facilities, and only for the purpose of causing physical or economic harm, it establishes different standards for animal rights activists and others who might use deception to gain access to facilities for other reasons… Also, Rose said, the harm that the law seeks to prohibit stems from the speech, or the publication of information, that grows out of the unprotected, false statements used to gain access to the facility…<\/em><\/p>\n

The state, she noted, had argued that Iowa is entitled \u201cto address a specific problem, which the legislature determined to be deceptive trespass by those who seek to cause harm to agricultural facilities. But plaintiffs point out that this is precisely the problem with the law: that it is not intended to address all trespass or resum\u00e9 fraud at agricultural facilities \u2014 only that of individuals like plaintiffs who intend to document certain practices.\u201d\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

In August 2021, a three-judge appellate panel party partially reversed Gritzner on the first law, finding that criminalizing false statements on employment applications was unconstitutional, but criminalizing the act of gaining access to an ag facility through false pretenses was not. That ruling cleared the way for consideration of the constitutionality of the second trespass law and resulted in Monday\u2019s decision by Judge Rose…<\/em><\/p>\n

The ruling represents a major victory for the plaintiffs as it was issued as part of a summary judgment order, in which the case was decided without the necessity of a trial… Asked whether the state intends to appeal Rose\u2019s ruling, a spokesperson for Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said Tuesday the office is reviewing the matter \u201cand determining next steps”… In the past 10 years, Iowa\u2019s state legislators have passed four separate laws intended to discourage activists from obtaining jobs at agricultural facilities for the purpose of conducting undercover investigations into the treatment of animals. <\/em>SOURCE…<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

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