Abstract
Billions of animals worldwide are used annually for human consumption. The agricultural industry enjoys a high-level of state protection because of its role in supplying the populace with food, and in turn, supporting the nation’s security. In Europe and the United States, activists make similar challenges to status quo animal industry practices: activists use video cameras to expose animal abuses and share their findings with the public. Several U.S. states with strong animal agricultural industries have passed “ag-gag” laws aimed at outlawing many of these activities, including filming undercover and entering slaughterhouses under false pretenses. Finding these laws restrict free speech and impede efforts to gather evidence for whistling blowing operations, activists have challenged these laws in U.S. federal district courts. This paper examines three of these lawsuits, including two in which activists won rather “easily” under favorable U.S. free speech jurisprudence. Next, I compare these cases to three free speech and expression cases brought by animal activists in Europe. I use this comparison to argue that even well written and strategically crafted “ag-gag” laws are unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny in the future because U.S. free speech jurisprudence exists to protect against the very purpose of ag-gag laws: government-led silencing of speech at the request of a powerful industry group.
Highlights
INTRODUCTIONThe agricultural use of animals accounts for the slaughter of over 60 billion land animals annually worldwide.[1]
This paper examines three recent cases that challenged U.S state “ag-gag” laws that restricted access to and speech in agricultural operations
The court found the First Amendment applied to the ag-gag law in question because the First Amendment protects lies that “do not cause legally cognizable harm,” and “at least some of the lies criminalized by the [statute] retain First Amendment protection.”[111] restrictions on the creation of speech “are treated to restrictions on speech itself” because “the consensus among courts is that the act of recording is protectable First Amendment speech.”[112]. The court found both the lying and recording provisions restricted content-based speech, because both provisions require a prosecutor examine either the words or the video footage itself.[113]
Summary
The agricultural use of animals accounts for the slaughter of over 60 billion land animals annually worldwide.[1]. Crowded conditions, increased automation, a single species per warehouse – these conditions characterize the industrial systems that today produce over half of the world’s pork and over two-thirds of its poultry, meat and eggs.[5] These agricultural operations provide harsh environments and crowded conditions Both meat and egg chickens have personal space the size of a single sheet of paper; pregnant pigs sit confined so tightly they cannot walk one step.[6]. Many states went one step further, criminalizing photography or video filming inside animal agricultural operations without the consent of the owner These laws are commonly referred to as “ag-gag laws.”. Animal activists in Europe challenge applicable member state criminal and civil code regulations as illegal restrictions on their right to freedom of expression. I offer possible procedural, historical, and contextual reasons for differences in outcomes between Europe and the U.S In conclusion, I suggest that while present day poorly written U.S “ag-gag” laws are challengeable, the strict scrutiny jurisprudence of the First Amendment is well-adept to handle any attempt by legislators to pass more strategically crafted ag-gag laws in the future
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
