Antagonistic #1

“ALEC’s sole purpose is to write model legislation that protects corporate profits. Industry then pushes state legislators to adapt the bills for their states and push them through. The idea behind the Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act is to make it illegal to “enter an animal or research facility to take pictures by photograph, video camera, or other or other means with the intent to commit criminal activities or defame the facility or its owner.””

Rebuttal: It seems as if this author is saying that walking into a business owners place of work with a camera is an okay thing to do. This is especially appalling when the known purpose of the photographs and videos is to hurt the business. But if we were to flip the roles and come into his place of work video taping everything he did with the intent to defame him, then surely it would not be okay.

Antagonistic #2

“Consumers have a right to know how their food is produced. Ag Gag legislation is a direct threat to the rights of the consumer, as it will shield the agriculture industry from any public scrutiny or inquiry.”

Rebuttal: Although consumers do have the right to know where their food is coming from and how it got onto the plate in front of them, there is a moral way to find their answers. For example, they may call the company directly or contact their state representative. That being said, it is unfair to post gruesome videos that depict meat farms in a negative light when it is certainly untrue.

Supportive #2

“An agricultural Affairs Committee member who supports the bill appropriately summarized how the activist group has crossed the line, by stating the following in her weekly legislative update. “By releasing the footage to the Internet, with petitions calling for a boycott of products of any company that bought meat or milk from Bettencourt Dairy, the organizations involved then crossed the ethical line for me. The goal of changing behavior then became ruining a business.””

Rebuttal: The goal of changing behavior then became the goal of stopping animal cruelty completely. If ruining a business is a casualty in that goal, then it must be done. The intention behind releasing the videos was not to ruin peoples livelihoods but to make the rest of the world aware of the horrors behind the scenes.

Supportive #3

“What’s more, I also know that PETA and HSUS supporters are usually behind these terrible videos depicting animal abuse. And, if they aren’t behind the camera catching the action, they are usually the ones initiating the abuse. And, these organizations strategically release these videos to wreak havoc on the agriculture industry, which usually results in litigation, loss of jobs and a direct shot at the markets.”

Rebuttal: This author is trying to point the finger at the very people whose lifes’ mission is to save farm animals from a brutal reality.  The abuse these organizations are inflicting, if any, is on the employees who spend each day carelessly murdering hundreds of animals.