Big Ag Gags the Freedom of Expression

“Ag-Gag” Laws: Evolution, Resurgence, and Public Health Implications

“…15 These laws included language specifically protecting agricultural sites from secretive surveillance and subjected the violator to criminal and civil penalties, fines, and/or damages. 2 It was not until approximately two decades after their first passage that aggag laws again caught the interest of state legislatures. This renewed interest may have been driven in part by industry efforts following the release of videos depicting unsanitary conditions and poor treatment of animals on IFAP operations between 2008 and 2011.…”

“…16,17 These videos were captured by animal rights activists who posed as IFAP workers and strategically documented habitual animal rights violations by other IFAP workers. 2,17 As a result of journalistic expose´s using these videos, several large-scale industrial livestock production operations received negative press and verdicts and/or sanctions that led to the termination of national contracts for distribution, resulting in facility closures. 16,17 Seemingly in response to those cases, state legislators introduced a new wave of ag-gag bills in at least sixteen states, all of which contained provisions to prohibit gathering evidence without owner-operators' consent, gaining employment under false pretenses, or requiring relinquishment of evidence gathered within 24, 48, and 72 h of capture.…”

“…16,17 Seemingly in response to those cases, state legislators introduced a new wave of ag-gag bills in at least sixteen states, all of which contained provisions to prohibit gathering evidence without owner-operators' consent, gaining employment under false pretenses, or requiring relinquishment of evidence gathered within 24, 48, and 72 h of capture. 2,17 In addition to Kansas, 13 Montana, 14 and North Dakota, 15 ag-gag laws were ultimately passed in Idaho, 18 Utah, 19 Wyoming, 20 Missouri, 21 North Carolina, 22 Iowa, 23 and Arkansas 24 (Table 1). Those in Idaho and Utah have been held unconstitutional, and parts of Idaho's law were struck down by the Ninth Circuit Court on First Amendment grounds in early 2018.…”

“…These laws criminalize and/or provide civil penalties or damages for either (1) acts of video recording or photographing agricultural facilities without express permission from the owners or (2) misrepresentation of oneself as a job applicant under false pretenses with motives to commit an unauthorized act, which includes collecting unauthorized data or imagery from a facility. 2 Ag-gag laws could subject reporters, researchers, and activists to civil lawsuits and even criminal charges if they engage in certain journalistic and/or investigative efforts in U.S. states where such laws have been passed. Concerns exist about whether these laws may exert a "chilling effect" on environmental health research and reporting, particularly as related to IFAP.…”

“…9 Recent ag-gag laws have become increasingly far-reaching in terms of civil and criminal penalties and potential to be applied beyond the agricultural sector. 10 Here, we (1) give a brief summary of various ag-gag laws in eight U.S. states; (2) introduce what is known about occupational and community health conditions related to IFAP; and (3) discuss ways that ag-gag laws might affect occupational health, community health, and food safety research and reporting efforts. We conclude by discussing the roles of environmental and occupational health researchers in encouraging a critical evaluation of ag-gag laws, and how they may impact occupational, community, and public health outcomes.…”