Criminalizing Absolutely Everything: Especially Whistleblowing
GOP Indiana state Senator Travis Holdman wants to make journalists' and whistleblowers' undercover videos at businesses a crime. Jonathan Turley blogs:
Notably, torts already protect companies from trespass, even against news organizations....The new law in Indiana would make such videos a crime and allow a second such violation to be charged as a Class A misdemeanor, punishable with up to a $5,000 fine. Holdman truly found a home with industry lobbyists and portrayed animal rights whistleblowers and journalists as nothing more than "vigilantes" and refused to even acknowledge that they are either working to protect animals or inform the public: "We don't need vigilantes out entering people's private property, industrial operation, factory or farm, doing things surreptitiously ... for no other reason than to annoy and harass."
Strangely, he cited a story of a farmer in his district as the reason for the bill. The farmer reported that someone making a delivery had taken a picture of his phone. But then nothing happened. No embarrassment, no publication, no record that it occurred. However, that was enough for Holdman, he claims, to try to criminalize the work of journalists and whistleblowers.
What is particularly astonishing is that the Committee heard from a spokesman for Rose Acre Farms, which complained that it lost business after the Humane Society of the United States posted a video showing shocking conditions at their facilities. That would seem to be an excellent reason to support such whistleblowers but the Senators sat in open concern and shock for the company. There were no doubt gasps as Joe Miller, Rose Acre's general counsel, recounted that 50 customers indicated that they might not want to do business with such a company and "that would have devastated our business."
Thank God there are Travis Holdmans out there to protect such companies threatened by the exposure of animal abuse.
Now, I don't agree with the proposed legislation, but I can understand part of the business owners' perspective. Most of these undercover videos are shot by activists who get access to the businesses by going through the application process and getting hired. One could venture to say that would constitute fraud if the sole purpose of gaining employment was to shoot a whistleblower video. If the business' revenue was harmed by the release of the video, I could see the owner wanting the person responsible criminally charged and ordered to pay a fine or spend time in jail.
Fayd at February 15, 2013 12:00 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/02/criminalizing-a.html#comment-3605810">comment from FaydAgain, there are already laws in place to deal with that.
Amy Alkon
at February 15, 2013 12:20 PM
True, there are, butas so often occurs in tort law these days, there's a resources problem. A mom-and-pop business is not going to be able to pursue a defamation suit against a well-funded activist organization that has slandered them.
I think the real answer is that we have to somehow return the tort-law system to some semblence of administering justice. As it's structured now, money, political access, and political correctness trumps law and facts in nearly every case where those things come into play.
Cousin Dave at February 15, 2013 1:15 PM
"butas"... hey, it's Friday.
Cousin Dave at February 15, 2013 1:16 PM
Wow. Time to sound the consistency alarm again.
If you truly believe filming these businesses is a good thing - and I suggest you do given their utility at consumer protection - then you MUST accept cameras in your own life.
Because individuals set up the conditions these activists call criminal.
There's an alternative. A business can run cameras all the time, releasing their recording only to police. You already think that's OK at WalMart.
Radwaste at February 15, 2013 2:47 PM
"You already think that's OK at WalMart."
But where else would I get my daily giggles and positive proof of Devolution in action?
Azenogoth at February 15, 2013 5:41 PM
"If you truly believe filming these businesses is a good thing - and I suggest you do given their utility at consumer protection - then you MUST accept cameras in your own life"
We're talking about filming crimes (or what should be crimes if they are not). You really honestly can't tell that activities such as animal maltreatment or unsanitary food production are different to private activities of a law-abiding individual? Really?
Lobster at February 16, 2013 7:11 PM
Leave a comment