{"id":767990,"date":"2022-04-27T07:00:23","date_gmt":"2022-04-27T11:00:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=767990"},"modified":"2022-04-27T07:36:13","modified_gmt":"2022-04-27T11:36:13","slug":"in-a-win-for-animal-rights-groups-supreme-court-allows-secret-filming-at-slaughterhouses","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=767990","title":{"rendered":"FREE SPEECH FOR FREEDOM: U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Ag-Gag law, allows undercover investigations of factory farms"},"content":{"rendered":"\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t

The law in question made it a crime to engage in activities that are essential to conducting undercover investigations that have in the past revealed horrific treatment of farmed animals to the public.<\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/blockquote>\n\n

ALDF:<\/strong> In a major victory for animals, workers, and transparency in the animal agriculture industry, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that struck down Kansas\u2019s \u201cAg-Gag\u201d law for violating the First Amendment. The decision follows a lawsuit filed in 2018 by an Animal Legal Defense Fund-led coalition of animal, environmental, and food safety advocacy groups challenging the law\u2019s constitutionality.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Kansas law in question made it a crime to engage in activities that are essential to conducting undercover investigations that have in the past revealed horrific treatment of farmed animals and food workers to the public. The appeals court held that Kansas may not silence views critical of industrial animal agriculture. The court\u2019s decision affirmed that videos, articles, advocacy, and public dialogue generated by whistleblowing and undercover investigations of factory farms and slaughterhouses relate to a matter of public concern: The treatment of animals and workers on factory farms and slaughterhouses, and manner in which food is produced. Such speech lies at the core of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court\u2019s decision leaves that important ruling in place.<\/em><\/p>\n

The 2021 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit\u2019s decision notes: \u201c[T]he text and legislative history of the Act evince Kansas\u2019s desire to limit the ability of [the Animal Legal Defense Fund] and like organizations to engage in true speech critical of animal facilities.. . .. We reject this approach because it elevates form over substance and permits Kansas to do just what the First Amendment prohibits: \u2018license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules.\u2019\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cThe U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s decision not to disturb the lower court decisions is a victory for farmed animals, factory farm and slaughterhouse workers, and food and public safety \u2014 as it leaves intact the public\u2019s constitutional rights over protecting corporate interests and profits. Until there are cameras publicly broadcasting the conditions within factory farms and slaughterhouses, investigations are the country\u2019s only opportunity to see the horrific \u2018industry standard\u2019 conditions under which food is made,\u201d says Animal Legal Defense Fund Executive Director Stephen Wells. \u201cThe industry works hard to keep its practices secret, knowing consumers won\u2019t accept the intense confinement and other inhumane treatment of animals, as evidenced by the passing of California\u2019s Proposition 12 and other proposed state legislation.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to California\u2019s Proposition 12 ballot initiative, which outlaws the sale of animal products from pigs held in gestation crates, calves held in veal crates, and eggs from hens kept in battery cages. The measure passed after undercover investigation footage exposed the cramped and cruel conditions in which pigs, calves, and chickens spend their lives at industrial animal agricultural facilities.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cThe Supreme Court\u2019s refusal to review the Tenth Circuit\u2019s decision leaves in place important constitutional protections for investigators working with animal rights groups to expose misconduct in the industrial animal agriculture industry,\u201d says Alan Chen, a University of Denver law professor who helped lead the lawsuit against Kansas. \u201cThis is a big win for the national campaign against Ag-Gag laws.\u201d Enacted in 1990, the Kansas Ag-Gag law was the oldest in the United States. Kansas is a major agricultural producer with the third-most cows of any state, and until being struck down, its Ag-Gag law had successfully prevented whistleblowers from investigating the conditions that millions of pigs, cows, chickens, and other animals endure.<\/em><\/p>\n

There have been nine lawsuits challenging state Ag-Gag laws around the country. Earlier lawsuits have resulted in courts striking down similar laws or portions of laws in Iowa, North Carolina, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals will soon consider the constitutionality of Iowa\u2019s second law, after striking down Iowa\u2019s first law and recently clearing the way for an Animal Legal Defense Fund-led coalition\u2019s lawsuit challenging Arkansas\u2019 law to proceed. A decision concerning North Carolina\u2019s law is pending in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Animal Legal Defense Fund is also currently challenging a third Iowa law in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. SOURCE…<\/strong><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

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