Counterintuitive Spring 2023

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.

Antagonistic 2.

“The First Amendment’s freedom of speech and press is blind-sighted with Ag Gag legislation. Limiting the constitutional right to photograph and record punishes those who seek free speech and press, without proof of harm. Instead of punishing the abusers, these bills punish those who expose the abuse.”

The author of this claims that the Ag-gag laws are unconsistutional in the way that they are limiting the right to press of the journalists but they fail to mention that taking pictures and reporting about someone’s business without their permission is a violation of their privacy and unless they work for the government, the Constitution protects from the government surpressing one’s freedom of speech, press, etc.

Antagonistic 3.

“…secretly videotaping a farm without the owner’s permission”

Even if preventing such things from happening is unconstitutional because it is going against the first amendment’s right to free speech and press what is keeping it from going against other amendments about no search and seizure? It seems like a clear violation if there is no warrent and it’s being done “secretly” and “without the owner’s permission”.

Supportive 3

“I asked this individual to define factory farming. After all, I don’t know any factory farmers. With 98% of farms and ranches in the U.S. family owned and operated, I know that today’s food is grown by people who care about the animals, the environment and the final retail product.”

This author assumes that every family owned farm is the happy, go-lucky farmer that gives a kiss to each of his cows with no factories and no worries about profit margins or productivity because he loves his cows and treats them humanely. If that were the truth, we probably wouldn’t be worrying about this situation.

Supportive 2

“In the medicine and finance industries for example, whistleblowing isn’t considered a crime.”

The author fails to state any instances when whistblowing has occurred in the medicine and finance industries was passed off. There is no supportive evidence that whistleblowing is not a crime. It doesn’t take into account of the consequences of whistleblowing in these other industries. Maybe they handle differently rather than causing a large uproar with so much litigation.

Last Chance for Animals

Ag Gag is a state level legislation projected at punishing whistleblowers on farms with mass amounts of animals throughout the U.S.A. However there are many dangers with Ag Gag. For instance, the animal’s welfare is being jeopardies in factory farms because they are constantly being mistreated and physically abused by the workers. Undercover investigations need to be done on these farms because illegal animals cruelty is still going on and will remain unless the workers are caught in the act. Of course there is also food safety risks because when the animals are mishandled their meat and their byproducts can lead to serious health risks like antibiotic- resistant strains of salmonella and staph. I think the Ag Gag movement is terrible because this is just a way for factory farms to hide the abuse and horrific conditions happening in these factory farms.

Antagonistic 2:

“1) Criminalizes unauthorized video and audio recordings by activists, employees and journalists on farm premises.”

This claim found in “Last Chance for Animals – What is Ag Gag?” is crucial in the Ag Gag legislation laws. Therefore, due to the claim, the surveillance will be monitored much more carefully. After the farm is under careful surveillance, the risk of contaminated foods from the farms are less likely, also unreported or hidden abuse of animals are less likely to occur as well. By bugging farms, things that most farms may get away with, either for a cheaper method, or faster production-enthused method will not occur and animals will be taken care of the way they deserve.

Antagonistic 1:

“Today’s ALEC-inspired bills take direct aim at anyone who tries to expose horrific acts of animal cruelty, dangerous animal-handling practices that might lead to food safety issues, or blatant disregard for environmental laws designed to protect waterways from animal waste runoff. “

In the early stages of the ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), their main focus was on deterring people from stealing, destroying property, or releasing animals, rather than the aiming towards animal cruelty and food safety issues of contamination on farms. It is apparent that the advancement in food has also advanced down the train of a bad reputation, animal cruelty, rather than a more secure fence on things like releasing animals.

Supportive 2:

“That’s because this new statute – designed to prevent people from documenting what goes on in factory farms, like all of the now seven total ag gag laws in the U.S. – is alarmingly broad, according to senior ALDF attorney Matthew Liebman, affecting “virtually any place where there’s any interaction between humans and animals and plants.” ”

In the supportive article of Ag Gag laws, “Conservationists join animal rights groups to challenge Idaho Ag Gag law” it is brought to our attention that Idaho would indeed intend to pass an Ag Gag law to never have to document whatever may go on a farm premises. With Idaho becoming its own supportive candidate, with such little background support, the chance of an absurd law such as this will become slim to none. Contrary to popular belief, the whereabouts and security of animals (or plants) on farms should be a top of the chart bullet point on a list of “What to Do” for the day. 

Supportive 3:

“With 98% of farms and ranches in the U.S. family owned and operated, I know that today’s food is grown by people who care about the animals, the environment and the final retail product.”

In the BEEF Daily, the supportive details of saying that the farmers behind the U.S. family owned and operated farm, are that they take care of the animals because they live and breathe everyday through the labor and look after of their farm. So, with the Ag Gag law in effect, the trust that is built up between ALEC and farm owners will all that will need to be said.

Antagonistic 1:

“Apart from the obvious ethical concerns, Ag-Gag laws also threaten public health and the environment, and undermine workers’ rights and free speech laws. Undercover investigations at factory farms have exposed the mishandling of meat, eggs and milk in ways that could potentially lead to health risks including mad cow disease, salmonella, e-coli and others. One investigation in Chino, Calif., revealed widespread mistreatment of “downed” cows – cows that are too sick or injured to walk. The facility is the second-largest supplier of beef to USDA’s Commodity Procurement Branch, which distributes the beef to the National School Lunch Program.”

I believe that the evidence supplied beyond the claim that Ag-Gag laws threaten public health and the environment, does not quite add up to such a conclusion. Is it not true that some of these laws possibly protect the environment around the factories of interest? Breaking into these facilities can very well cause damage to containment functions in the heated process of uncovering injustice. It seems to me that the argument for environmental protection and public health is equal on both sides, and there for is insufficient.

Antagonistic 2:

“Factory farmed animals are constantly mistreated and abused. Without undercover investigations, illegal animal cruelty will resume and farmed animals will continue to suffer a brutal reality.”

This is simply not true because it claims that the sole way to improve conditions for abused animals is through undercover investigations. While it is true that it is indeed a way, and apparently a good way, of achieving the goal of exposing animal abuse, it is not the only way. For instance, everyone knows of mistreat of animals, and most people simply don’t care. When we see these videos it’s really just a reminder of what we know is going on. Why should it take guilt and reinforcement like that to end inhumane practices? Perhaps it is wishful thinking, but I think individual humans have to realize these things on their own, without being guilted, to really want to do anything about it.

Supportive 1:

“By allowing the state government to define the terms of eco-terror, the government has the ability to attach significant penalties to those who have joined the extremist movements and enhance their ability to act out with violence.”

This very well may be true in certain liberal states, but in the example states where ad-gag has already been implemented, such as Iowa and Utah, it seems that these laws do not have this intended outcome. While the language here is clearly biased towards the supportive side, demonizing anyone who would seek to expose animal rights as extremists, it’s also important to note that their attempts to expose violence, is being coined as “violence” by Ad-Gag supporters. More importantly, by allowing state governments to control these decisions, it is left to certain interest groups who have a large say in these states to make the ultimate decision. What if this said interest group is particular interested in meat or dairy business. Then they would use their influence to pass these laws, rather than consider the legality of the act.

Supportive 3:

“While ag gag laws may protect farmers and ranchers, such laws may also send a signal to consumers that we are trying to hide something. 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.”

This seems like a paranoid claim on the part of the author, though regardless of its supposed validity, the claim is not enough to outweigh the protection of animal rights. The fact that animals cannot defend themselves, means there needs to be complete transparency between the corporations and the consumers. Any attempt to prevent these measures from being enacted cannot be justified through animal activists applying for jobs in an attempt to expose such abuse. It does not seem to add up to the claim.

Antagonistic 1

“Apart from the obvious ethical concerns, Ag-Gag laws also threaten public health and the environment, and undermine workers’ rights and free speech laws. Undercover investigations at factory farms have exposed the mishandling of meat, eggs and milk in ways that could potentially lead to health risks including mad cow disease, salmonella, e-coli and others.”

The author of this article incorrectly assumes that there is only a single method of reporting health concerns. Anyone who has even a remote understanding of food industry will be able to verify that routine inspections of facilities in which food is processed or prepared do indeed take place. The executors of these inspections are responsible for reporting improper conditions, especially diseases such as, in the words of the author,” mad cow disease, salmonella, e-coli, and others.” This claim is a gross exaggeration, and pretends that ag-gag laws prevent any and all methods of reporting health concerns.

Antagonistic 2

“Documentation of environmental violations at factory farms is crucial in getting the government to impose progressive changes in the way that industrial farming impacts the environment.”

While this claim asserts that there are multiple ways in which industrial farming affects the environment, the claim provides no evidence to support itself. Not a single method of impact is named. Furthermore, the claim does not name any such environmental violations, nor does it show how ag-gag laws are related to the environment—there is nothing present to imply that ag-gag laws are related to anything but animal cruelty.

Supportive 1

“With 98% of farms and ranches in the U.S. family owned and operated, I know that today’s food is grown by people who care about the animals, the environment and the final retail product.”

This claim cleverly uses statistics to lie. While it may be true that 98% of farms and ranches are family owned, this is only a representation of the total number of farms and ranches in the United States. It does not, however, give any context about the size of these farms. By this reasoning, there is nothing to say that these 2% of farms that are not family owned are not, in fact, gargantuan in comparison to the other 98%. There is nothing to say that the 98% of farms may only be home to 20% of the animals. If this is true, today’s food may not, in fact, be “grown by people who care about the animals[.]”

Supportive 2

“The law defines an agricultural facility as “any structure or land, whether privately or publicly owned, leased or operated, that is being used for agricultural production” (emphasis added), and makes it a crime for virtually anyone to film or photograph in such places without express consent. But with such a broad definition, the law could potentially apply not only to factory farms and slaughterhouses like ag gag laws in other states, but also to public parks, restaurants, nursing homes, grocery stores, pet stores, and virtually every public establishment and private residence in Idaho, according to the lawsuit.”

This claim is simply preposterous in its massive exaggeration. It names many places that could potentially be considered agricultural facilities, but it offers no explanation. Public parks, while sometimes home to a few geese, are generally not used for agriculture—the park does not exist for the purpose of raising geese to be slaughtered and eaten; it exists for the purpose of outdoor exercise and entertainment. Restaurants are used for food preparation and production, but not for the purpose of raising the actual animals. When restaurants receive meat, it has already been raised and killed.  This is the essence of agriculture, and it is not the reason that restaurants exist. Cooking is not agriculture, and therefore canot reasonably be affected by ag-gag laws. Suggesting that nursing homes are agricultural facilities is a truly disturbing concept, as it implies that nursing homes only exist so that the elderly may be raised, killed, and then eaten. Unless there is a dark secret behind the clean and sterile exterior of nursing homes, this is certainly not the case, and nursing homes can most certainly not be considered an agricultural facility. Grocery stores are not agricultural facilities by the same reasoning that restaurants are not—the meat that grocery stores receive has already been killed, and is not raised in the store itself. Pet stores are also a frightening exaggeration, as it suggests that we have been misinterpreting the term “dog food” all along. Unless pet stores exist solely for the purpose of raising animals for food—which is both illegal and uncommon in the United States—this claim is simply not correct.

Judge Strikes Down Ag-Gag Law:

In the article “Judge Strikes Down Idaho ‘Ag-Gag’ Law” by Luke Runyon, an Idaho judge decided that Ag-Gag laws were unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment for freedom of speech. Runyon makes a good point about how the Ag-Gag laws violate privacy rights because the laws are used to curb undercover investigations on privately owned farms without the consent of the farmer. However, these laws aren’t a complete violation of the First Amendment. It is absolutely disturbing for farmers to abuse animals, whether it is on a private or public farm. It should never be tolerated.

What is Ag-Gag:

In the article “What is Ag-Gag” the author makes a claim about the Ag-Gag legislation “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.” Although it could be hard to document patterns of abuse since undercover investigators must submit footage as soon as possible, it isn’t hard to see the abuse in the video. Once the abuse is recorded the proof is there so it isn’t quite necessary to see patterns of abuse. Abuse is simply wrong and shouldn’t be allowed on any farm.

Do You Support Ag-Gag Laws:

“But, Amanda, I know animal abuse is real. I’ve watched all those videos on YouTube of factory farmers beating their animals.” This is a statement from a Michigan college student who toured a ranch last summer. Although animal abuse does exist and there are plenty of videos all over the Internet of it being done it isn’t right to assume all farmers abuse their animals. After all the videos that are posted are done by PETA and HSUS supporters who see this being done once by very few farmers and make advertisements as if every farmer in the country is doing it. Ag-Gag laws are useful but aren’t needed in every state because not every farmer abuse their animals.

Dairymen Speak Out Against Animal Activists:

New laws in Idaho state that “The state ends up punishing those who expose animal cruelty more seriously than those who commit it.” I completely disagree with this new law and find it very unfair to punish those who expose animal abuse more harshly than the ones actually committing the crime. After all, animal abuse and any type of abuse is a charge and is wrong. Therefore if the farmer is exposed for committing the crime of animal abuse they should be punished however the one who reports it should be penalized for recording on a private property without consent of the owner but not harshly punished.