Opponents of an Idaho law that prohibits secret recordings of farm operations will argue the statute should be thrown out as unconstitutional.
A federal judge has scheduled a hearing about Idaho’s so-called “ag gag” law for Feb. 17 in Boise, with oral arguments centering on whether the statute violates free speech and equal protection rights.
Under the law, which Idaho enacted in 2014, it’s a crime to make undercover recordings or gain employment under false pretenses at a farm.
Lawmakers passed the statute in response to public backlash against a dairy company whose employees were filmed abusing cattle.
The Animal Legal Defense Fund and other opponents of the law claim that it violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by attempting to stop public discourse about animal abuse in agriculture.
“Quelling public debate can never qualify as a legitimate government interest, much less a compelling one,” the group said in a court brief.
For a limit on free speech to survive “strict scrutiny” in federal court, it must be the least obstructive way to achieve a legitimate government interest, such as a ban on child pornography or defamation, the plaintiffs claim.
“Journalistic and whistleblower speech hardly fall in any of these categories,” the brief said.
The law lacks a compelling government interest or “pressing public necessity” because it’s solely geared toward protecting the reputation of the animal agriculture industry, the plaintiffs claim.
Idaho officials cannot successfully argue the statute serves the same purpose as laws against defamation because it bans audiovisual recordings even if the events they portray are not false, according to ALDF.
“The sponsors and supporters of the ag gag law made no effort to hide the fact that a substantial motivation for the law was to prevent the agricultural industry from being tried ‘in the court of public opinion,’” the brief states, citing the state’s legislative record.
ALDF also alleges the Idaho statute violates the 14th Amendment, which provides people with equal protection under the law.
The Idaho law targets a “politically unpopular group”—animal rights activists—and is motivated by animosity, as evidenced by legislator statements that compared activists to “terrorists” and “marauding invaders,” the brief said.
“In sum, this legislative history leaves no doubt that overt hostility towards animal welfare groups, and moral disapproval of their operations, were substantial motivating factors for the ag gag law,” the plaintiffs said.
Attorneys representing Idaho respond there’s a rational basis for the law that doesn’t impinge on free speech rights.
The statute only imposes criminal penalties on unauthorized activities like “entering a facility, acquiring its records or seeking employment with the express purpose of doing harm to the employer,” the state argues in a court brief.
The ban on audiovisual recordings is not an unlawful “content-based” restriction on free speech but is actually a “content-neutral” prohibition against such activity, even if it does specifically apply to agricultural practices, the brief said.
Legal precedents also preclude the federal court from “psychoanalyzing the Idaho legislature” and its reasons for enacting the law, state attorneys claim.
Even if the judge did “engage in the feckless task of trying to discern such motive,” he would find that legislators passed the law to protect property rights and prevent “wrongful entry and criminal trespass,” the brief said.
For the same reasons, the plaintiffs fail to prove the Idaho statute denies equal protection under the law —despite some legislators’ statements about animal rights advocates, the bill doesn’t discriminate against any particular group, the state said.
“The statute does not deny benefits or restrict liberties according to a class of persons,” the brief said. “Instead, it, just like any garden-variety criminal statute, applies to everyone based on conduct.”
Source: www.capitalpress.com