Federal judge strikes down Idaho law banning documentation of animal abuse

[NobleSavage]

Couldn't they just have all employees sign a NDA and then sue the shit out of them to discourage such behavior? Granted some activists probably wouldn't care.

 

[Jarhyn]

For whatever it is worth, as this seems a very unpopular opinion, I don't really care about animal suffering if it doesn't also cause suffering of persons other than the suffering they inflict psychologically on themselves.

It seems an onerous burden to care about meaningless dances of particles through the space between a steer's ears when nothing of the steer whatsoever will survive past the end of the day/month/year beyond a mark on a piece of paper sayi g it existed and a delicious chunk of meat on a shelf, both of which would be functionally identical regardless of whether the animal 'suffered' or not, whether or not that suffering was 'necessary' or not.

Darwinian doomed evolvers who pass on genes which themselves are unaffected by suffering are not hurt as to whether or not they suffer, have any measure of physical freedom, or other concerns. They live, they die, and then they are gone along with any suffering they had in life. People are different because suffering directly impacts a person's contributions to other people, and their ability to contribute to others or their own open-ended survival. Suffering only matters when it has a material impact on the survival of some unit of communicable adaptation. For animals, especially of the brain power of a farm animal, it does not.

The one exception to this is when inducing suffering in animals anesthetizes people from the emotions that insulate us from causing suffering in other people. And in this case a solution perhaps more valid than ending animal 'cruelty' would be to find ways to dissociate the generalization of such 'cruel' behavior to people for whom it would ACTUALLY be cruel.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Deceitful editing of recordings on public property are still possible. I see no need to restrict it: You don't have permission, you have to release the whole recording.



That I definitely disagree with--that would not permit making the recordings over time. I think there is a very valid place for undercover recordings (and in fact I favor permitting some that are not currently permitted--outside the bedroom I would say one-party rules should be the law of the land), I just want to keep them from getting away with deceitful edits. Posting the unedited material and providing a link accomplishes that.

- - - Updated - - -

You're not getting it. No release is needed. It's just that if you don't have permission of the owner/those depicted in it then you must make available the original also.

He's saying to provide it to the opposing side, I'm saying to post it.

And you are both incredibly naive.

Given that there is no way to tell the difference between a five minute video clipped from a three hour recording, and a five minute video that is all that was recorded, you are recommending an unenforceable law. Such laws are utterly futile and achieve nothing.

Very often it's obvious they only are showing part of the thing. They're not switching on their hidden camera just before something interesting happened, it's been running.

Well just as soon as 'Loren says it's obvious' becomes the standard of evidence in a court of law, you will have a point.

If I say that I just got my camera out in time - gosh, I am so lucky - and that I only managed to get ten seconds of damning footage, how are you going to prove that I am lying?

Bear in mind that saying 'obviously the witness is simply lying' in a court of law, with no evidence to support that claim, will not be a career enhancing move for any lawyer.

That doesn't work when it's a hidden camera. You didn't just get that out!

Prove it.

I say I only got ten seconds of footage. If you can't prove that I got more, then you've not got a leg to stand on. How, exactly, can your PROVE your allegation that I have more footage than I am admitting to?

Show how you managed to record only 10 seconds. What's the trigger mechanism, how is it done without giving away what's up, what was your reason for not recording until then and what made you decide to record at that point. And why did you shut the system down again?

 

[bilby]

Deceitful editing of recordings on public property are still possible. I see no need to restrict it: You don't have permission, you have to release the whole recording.



That I definitely disagree with--that would not permit making the recordings over time. I think there is a very valid place for undercover recordings (and in fact I favor permitting some that are not currently permitted--outside the bedroom I would say one-party rules should be the law of the land), I just want to keep them from getting away with deceitful edits. Posting the unedited material and providing a link accomplishes that.

- - - Updated - - -

You're not getting it. No release is needed. It's just that if you don't have permission of the owner/those depicted in it then you must make available the original also.

He's saying to provide it to the opposing side, I'm saying to post it.

And you are both incredibly naive.

Given that there is no way to tell the difference between a five minute video clipped from a three hour recording, and a five minute video that is all that was recorded, you are recommending an unenforceable law. Such laws are utterly futile and achieve nothing.

Very often it's obvious they only are showing part of the thing. They're not switching on their hidden camera just before something interesting happened, it's been running.

Well just as soon as 'Loren says it's obvious' becomes the standard of evidence in a court of law, you will have a point.

If I say that I just got my camera out in time - gosh, I am so lucky - and that I only managed to get ten seconds of damning footage, how are you going to prove that I am lying?

Bear in mind that saying 'obviously the witness is simply lying' in a court of law, with no evidence to support that claim, will not be a career enhancing move for any lawyer.

That doesn't work when it's a hidden camera. You didn't just get that out!

Prove it.

I say I only got ten seconds of footage. If you can't prove that I got more, then you've not got a leg to stand on. How, exactly, can your PROVE your allegation that I have more footage than I am admitting to?

Show how you managed to record only 10 seconds. What's the trigger mechanism, how is it done without giving away what's up, what was your reason for not recording until then and what made you decide to record at that point. And why did you shut the system down again?

Sorry, but we are talking about a lawful trial here; I have the right to remain silent, and I have the right not to incriminate myself. If you want to charge me, you have to prove I broke the law without my help.

Of course, if you are going to suspend the constitution, and put in place a regime where the burden of proof is on the defendants, then you can convict me easily; but that seems a heavy price to pay just to punish one activist who may (or may not) have taken more footage than he has published.

You seem to be very keen to imagine a totalitarian police state as a utopian cure-all. I mean, for someone who claims to be a moderate libertarian, that's a fairly odd stance.

 

[fast]

Nm

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sorry, but we are talking about a lawful trial here; I have the right to remain silent, and I have the right not to incriminate myself. If you want to charge me, you have to prove I broke the law without my help.

Of course, if you are going to suspend the constitution, and put in place a regime where the burden of proof is on the defendants, then you can convict me easily; but that seems a heavy price to pay just to punish one activist who may (or may not) have taken more footage than he has published.

You seem to be very keen to imagine a totalitarian police state as a utopian cure-all. I mean, for someone who claims to be a moderate libertarian, that's a fairly odd stance.

While you have the right to remain silent that doesn't mean the jury isn't going to pay attention to the improbability of your scenario.

As for one activist--I would be very surprised if it wasn't 100.00%. Storage is cheap, you don't want to lose the shot. If you're after a non-repeatable scene you always start your camera as soon as there is any possibility of getting a worthwhile shot.

The burden that compliance imposes is trivial under my proposal, they'll comply. The only ones hurt by my proposal are the ones who want to do deceptive editing. I don't care if they get harmed.

 

[bilby]

Sorry, but we are talking about a lawful trial here; I have the right to remain silent, and I have the right not to incriminate myself. If you want to charge me, you have to prove I broke the law without my help.

Of course, if you are going to suspend the constitution, and put in place a regime where the burden of proof is on the defendants, then you can convict me easily; but that seems a heavy price to pay just to punish one activist who may (or may not) have taken more footage than he has published.

You seem to be very keen to imagine a totalitarian police state as a utopian cure-all. I mean, for someone who claims to be a moderate libertarian, that's a fairly odd stance.

While you have the right to remain silent that doesn't mean the jury isn't going to pay attention to the improbability of your scenario.

Jury? It won't get to a jury. What prosecutor is going to take on a case where the police claim that I am guilty of withholding video footage that I claim does not exist, and where the entirety of their evidence is "We have a pretty strong hunch he's lying"?

You don't have much idea how the justice system works, do you?

As for one activist--I would be very surprised if it wasn't 100.00%. Storage is cheap, you don't want to lose the shot. If you're after a non-repeatable scene you always start your camera as soon as there is any possibility of getting a worthwhile shot.

The burden that compliance imposes is trivial under my proposal, they'll comply. The only ones hurt by my proposal are the ones who want to do deceptive editing. I don't care if they get harmed.

I have no idea what the rest of this post is on about; certainly it has nothing to do with either the OP or our sidebar regarding the impracticality of your suggested legal solution.