Opposing 1 (“Reporting abuse is terrorism”)

A claim made by the author in this article is that, through interpretation, ag-gag laws are preventing people from being exposed to horrors of factory farms by making it more difficult for journalists to report on them. In reality, there is plenty of material in existence of factory farm and slaughterhouse cruelty. If anything, the introduction of this law is acting in favor of increased exposure, as it causes people to be more intrigued to research on their own instead of being spoon fed the information by a news article or report.

Opposing 3 (“Judge rules ag-gag as unconstitutional”)

A judge in Idaho ruled that ag-gag laws were unconstitutional as they violate the first amendment. By way of saying this, he is also stating that laws of privacy are now irrelevant and can be overridden by the all-powerful first amendment. This means the judge is placing the first amendment rights of the undercover reporters to discuss whatever they please about private organizations over the first amendment rights of farmers to defend their practices.

For 2 (“Conservationists join against”)

It is said that the ag-gag laws are far too broad for their own good in their current state, as they can apply to nearly anything. Not just farms, but also restaurants, parks, etc. A good point is made here, as it is never a good thing to have a law intended for one purpose to be affecting things outside its target. However, it is improbable to think that a bill could be worded so poorly as to have this effect on a large scale.

Supporting 3 (“Do you support ag-gag laws?”)

The author, in their second paragraph, states that farmers are all guilty of treating their animals with care and love. They leave absolutely no room to accept the inverse of this, that maybe farmers aren’t the nicest to their animals. When one becomes a farmer, there is no guaranteed complete change of heart towards animals. It is still entirely possible for a farmer to disrespect his stock.