Iowa lawmakers have introduced two bills (SF 341 and HF 431) that would make it a crime for activists to procure evidence of animal abuse by factory operations. Many of the past disclosures of abuse by circuses and industry have been the result of activists gaining access to factory operations through employment (as here). This law would specifically target such investigations to protect these companies.
News organizations have already sharply curtailed undercover reporting that was once the gold standard for journalism. This change followed the ruling in the Food Lion case.
In Food Lion v. ABC , a store was shown in an undercover segment engaging in unsanitary techniques and accused Food Lion of selling rat-gnawed cheese, meat that was past its expiration date and old fish and ham that had been washed in bleach to kill the smell. Food Lion denied the allegations and sued ABC for trespass. A jury ruled against ABC and awarded Food Lion punitive damages for the investigation involving ABC journalists lying on their application forms and assuming positions under false pretenses. (here). The Fourth Circuit however wiped out the punitive damage award while upholding the verdicts of trespass and breach of loyalty with awards of only $1 for each.
That case, however, showed that there are existing claims of trespass and fraud that can be brought. This law, however, would add heavy criminal penalties. Here is the language of the pertinent parts:
Sec. 9. NEW SECTION. 717A.2A Animal facility interference.
1. A person is guilty of animal facility interference, if the person acts without the consent of the owner of an animal facility to willfully do any of the following:
a. Produce a record which reproduces an image or sound occurring at the animal facility as follows:
(1) The record must be created by the person while at the animal facility. The record must be a reproduction of a visual or audio experience occurring at the animal facility, including but not limited to a photographic or audio medium.
b. Possess or distribute a record which produces an image or sound occurring at the animal facility which was produced as provided in paragraph “a”.
c. Exercise control over the animal facility including an animal maintained at the animal facility or other property kept at the animal facility, with intent to deprive the animal facility of the animal or property.
d. Enter onto the animal facility, or remain at the animal facility, if the person has notice that the facility is not open to the public. A person has notice that an animal facility is not open to the public if the person is provided notice before entering onto the facility, or the person refuses to immediately leave the facility after being informed to leave. The notice may be in the form of a written or verbal communication by the owner, a fence or other enclosure designed to exclude intruders or contain animals, or a sign posted which is reasonably likely to come to the attention of an intruder and which indicates that entry is forbidden.
2. A person who commits the offense of animal facility interference is guilty of the following:
a. For the first conviction, the person is guilty of an aggravated misdemeanor.
b. For a second or subsequent conviction, the person is guilty of a class “D” felony.3. A person convicted of animal facility interference is subject to an order of restitution as provided in chapter 910.
Sec. 10. NEW SECTION. 717A.2B Animal facility fraud.
1. A person is guilty of animal facility fraud, if the person willfully does any of the following:
a. Obtains access to an animal facility by false pretenses for the purpose of committing an act not authorized by the owner of the animal facility.b. Makes a false statement or representation as part of an application to be employed at the animal facility, if the person knows it to be false.
2. A person who commits the offense of animal facility fraud is guilty of the following:
a. For the first conviction, the person is guilty of an aggravated misdemeanor.
b. For a second or subsequent conviction, the person is guilty of a class “D” felony.3. A person convicted of animal facility fraud is subject to an order of restitution as provided in chapter 910.
Sec. 11. NEW SECTION. 717A.2C Animal facilities ==== civil actions.
1. A person suffering damages resulting from the commission of animal facility tampering as provided in section 717A.2 or animal facility interference as provided in section 717A.2A may bring an action in the district court against the person causing the damages to recover all of the following:
a. An amount equaling three times all actual and consequential damages.
b. Court costs and reasonable attorney fees.2. In addition to awarding damages as provided in subsection 1, a court may grant any equitable relief that the court determines is appropriate. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent a party from petitioning a court for equitable relief.
Source: Press Citizen
Buckeye,
Thanks for the links … good material
Buckeye,
Great information on socially responsible firms and their ceo’s.
Elaine M.
If you are still working on an environmental post, here is the website of the organization I mentioned before. The young man in the video is the one that came to talk to us. He told us the coal companies could use a $.25/ton method “filter pressing” that they used for years, instead of the methods now being used which produce the waste products that are such a problem.
This is not about fracking for natural gas, but is a problem with coal – slurry and sludge waste storage and it’s effect on the health of those living around it and those downstream from a dam’s bursting.
http://www.sludgesafety.org/health/index.html
Mike S. & rafflaw
You make good points. From a 1997 study by The American Journal of Business. It shows that CEOs of socially responsible firms earn more than non-socially responsible ones.
[Socially responsible investment choices are numerous. In fact, many mutual fund companies now offer one or more socially responsible investment choices. The TIAA-CREF Social Choice Fund, for example, is designed to provide a return that reflects a broad investment performance while giving special consideration for certain social criteria. At present, the fund will not invest in a company if it:
a. engages in activities that result or are likely to result in significant damage to the natural environment;
b. has a significant portion of its business in weapons manufacturing;
c. produces and markets alcoholic beverages or tobacco products;
d. produces nuclear energy; or
e. has operations in Northern Ireland and has not
1) adopted the MacBride Principles (a fair employment code for U.S. firms operating in Northern Ireland and
concerned with preventing religious discrimination in employment) or
2) operated consistently with such principles and in compliance with the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act in 1989.
Summary
The compensation levels of CEOs at social choice firms were found to be more highly associated with size and performance variables than those at nonsocial choice companies. The results indicate that social choice companies may be more concerned with social justification for high CEO compensation….
http://www.bsu.edu/mcobwin/majb/?p=290
TIAA-CREF is where a lot of my investments are. The study has several charts including one that shows the social choice and non-choice firms. It would be interesting to see what current numbers would show.
Mike S.,
You are right about the switch from good products to a making sure the stock price is high. Many of the CEO’s compensation is based on stock price and less on profitability or market share.
I’m with Culheath on this. What is the rationale for this legislation? To my mind the legislation could only be the product of industry pressure to cover up its’ operations and the dangers therein. One of the things that gets me about corporate operations in general is that creating good products been pushed aside in the effort to drive up bottom lines, thus increase the value of Stock
Options for the company’s executives. Good management should entail producing the best and safest product one is able to produce, so that the firm has a long-term future.
Buckeye
1, March 16, 2011 at 10:16 am
Of course Iowa is one of the largest meat packing industry states in the U.S. Follow the money.
============================================
Yep … it’s all about protecting the corporations.
Many corporations produce an inferior product. Producing a superior product would require a sound work ethic and pride in doing a job well. This is an absurd concept to many executives presently leading certain corporations in the United States.
Basically, we have a bunch of lazy-asses running our corporations. Buying off politicians to protect their executives from their own lack of discipline and sloth is the rule, not the exception. It’s who they are … it’s how they roll.
AY,
Great video!!
Stamford,
I think our “friends” are multiplying! I guess they may want to reconsider the defunding of contraceptive services!
Stamford Liberal,
The troll is logic challenged and would not recognize a false equivalence fallacy if it hit him in the rear with a bass fiddle.
Sounds Chicken Shit to me….but what do I know….
Of course Iowa is one of the largest meat packing industry states in the U.S. Follow the money.
Good dog … another troll … are they getting kicked out from under ALL bridges?? Sigh …
————————————–
OS,
“The simplest solution would be to avoid engaging in wrongful or illegal acts. That seems not to have occurred to many people.”
Good intentions but lacking in the brain cell department.
What the hell is going on with our country? This is INSANE.
From a previous post about Iowa judges now we know:
“Newt Gingrich secured $200 thousand for a successful campaign by anti-gay groups last fall to oust Iowa Supreme Court justices who voted to allow gay marriage in Iowa, the Los Angeles Times reports.”
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/newt_gingrich_helped_jump-start_campaign_to_oust_iowa_judges.php
Nada,
People have had a problem with O’Keefe because of the way he edits his tapes. Even right-winger Glenn Beck has found fault with O’Keefe’s latest “NPR” tape.
From Salon (3/15/2011)
Glenn Beck versus James O’Keefe (and Andrew Breitbart)
The right’s biggest nut starts turning on the movement’s bigger media stars
BY ALEX PAREENE
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/15/beck_breitbart_okeefe/index.html
Excerpt:
Increasingly unpopular television clown and radio revivalist Glenn Beck confused folks on the left and right recently when his “news” website the Blaze published a thorough and fair debunking of the recent NPR “sting” video produced by youthful video prankster and unprincipled conservative smear artist James O’Keefe.
The Blaze compared the edited and ready-for-air video with the lengthy unedited raw video of the NPR executives talking with the pretend Muslims attempting to goad them into saying outrageous things. The analysis found numerous shady and misleading edits and elisions. The report all but absolved former NPR fundraiser Ron Schiller of saying anything all that offensive to conservative Americans. The Blaze even reveals that the “raw” video was altered and censored for reasons unknown.
The Blaze’s Scott Baker concludes, “even if you are of the opinion, as I am, that undercover reporting is acceptable and ethical in very defined situations, it is another thing to approve of editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead about the material being presented.”
But the First Amendment protects the publications if there is no criminal intent, so if the video tapes were secured they could be published out of state…..right?
What a bunch of damn hypocrites! You all sure didn’t have a problem with the prosecution of James O’Keefe when he and his gang entered the building by means of fraud.
This follows in the track of arrests of citizens who take photos or videos of police officers engaging in wrongful acts.
The simplest solution would be to avoid engaging in wrongful or illegal acts. That seems not to have occurred to many people.
I’d like to hear the public rationales in support of these bills.
Wow. Free speech is on the run in Iowa. What is next? Left Wing talk radio? We can’t have that “lethal advocacy” in Iowa. Especially when it pulls the curtain away to disclose the horrific conditions in the animal “factories”!