Antagonistic 2: “2) If recordings are allowed, individuals are forced to submit footage to authorities in an unrealistically short turnaround time, making it impossible to document patterns of abuse. ”

-The law that would force individuals to submit the footage right away is reasonable because it prevents them from tampering with the evidence and making the company or the abuse look worse than it is in reality. There are already things in place to offer an outlet for people to anonymously report abuse, like a hotline at the Idaho State Department of Agriculture. The hotline can be used to report a pattern of abuse if the caller reports the abuse every time they witness it or hear about it. They would do so immediately instead of sitting on the evidence for a while and not doing anything to stop the abuse when they see it.

Antagonistic 3: “Signed into law in 2012, it was the first to criminalize secretly videotaping a farm without the owner’s permission.”

-This sentence claims that making the act of secretly videotaping a farm without the owner’s permission illegal is a bad thing. However, videotaping without permission goes against privacy rights that protect humans in the U.S. Unless the owner allows the workplace to be taped, it should not be allowed. Farms are workplace environments that are privately owned. It is wrong for people to videotape their coworkers doing work in their cubicles in an office setting, so it should be wrong for people to videotape their coworkers doing work on a farm setting as well.

Supportive 2: “Every one of the more than 500 dairy farm families in Idaho practices compassionate animal husbandry and does not condone any sort of abuse towards their animals. ”

-This claim is empty and insufficient. If all of the dairy farm families in Idaho practice compassionate animal husbandry, then abuse wouldn’t have been reported by animal rights activists. The activist group seeking to block SB1337 reported abuse that occurred on a farm by employees. The owner of the farm did not abuse the animals, but his employees did. Therefore, this claim has insufficient evidence because members of the family of this dairy farm did not practice compassionate animal husbandry.

Supportive 3: “However, we know activists are misrepresenting themselves in applying for jobs on farms, hoping to surreptitiously record incidents on the farm that can be used to their advantage.”

-If activists were to go into the farms and reveal that they were there to record the crimes for evidence, they would be kicked out and the crimes wouldn’t be reported, so of course they are going to hide their actual identity. It’s similar to a police officer going undercover and becoming a member of a gang that participates in illegal acts. In both instances, individuals are gathering information from incidents that support their theories of crime and illegal acts in order to have sufficient evidence to accuse and punish the culprits.