The industry-crafted law was "in large part, targeted at speech and investigative journalists," appeals court found.
When the Nonhuman Rights Project wins a decision in favor of a common law writ of habeas corpus on behalf of other animals, I’ll cheer. “Working for the recognition and protection of fundamental rights for nonhuman animals.”
Any chance of a link to the actual decision?
Good news. Since Idaho wasn’t even close to the first state to enact these laws, how does this ruling affect the same laws in other states?
No kidding, because I’m confused. The Court presumably struck down the section of the law criminalizing misrepresentation, but then we read this:
“The court upheld the part of the law that ‘criminalizes obtaining records of an agricultural production facility by misrepresentation’ as well as the section that ‘criminalizes obtaining employment by misrepresentation with the intent to cause economic or other injury.’”
Okay, which is it? The ADLF doesn’t even provide details.
How else can the misery of the industry be exposed without misrepresentation? Because that’s the only way activists can go “undercover,” isn’t it?
Great news, I hope this is the beginning and that other states will follow. It is time that our society recognizes and exposes all animal suffering. We are all responsible as long as we eat animals.
"The ALDF alleges that section 18-7042 has both the purpose and effect of stifling public debate about modern agriculture “by (1) criminalizing all employment-based undercover investigations; and (2)
criminalizing investigative journalism, whistleblowing by employees, or other expository efforts that entail images or sounds.”
Now I get the gist of the court’s decision. Thanks for the link.
“But the doctrinal center of the court’s analysis of the Idaho statute criminalizing misrepresentation is the United States Supreme Court’s fractured opinion in United States v. Alvarez (2012), holding unconstitutional the federal “stolen valor” statute criminalizing falsely claiming to have been awarded a military medal.”
Wow, a court that actually uses precedent! And from such a rather obscure source.