Judge rejects state’s motion to dismiss lawsuit challenging Idaho’s new ‘ag-gag’ law
Here’s a news item from the Associated Press: BOISE, Idaho (AP) — A federal judge has denied Idaho's request to dismiss a lawsuit arguing that the recently passed law criminalizing surreptitious recording at agriculture facilities is unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill says in a ruling issued Thursday that the case raises First Amendment concerns because it restricts protected speech. However, Winmill added that he is dismissing Gov. C. L. "Butch" Otter as a defendant from the case because Otter does not directly oversee enforcing the law. Animal rights, civil liberties and environmental groups are suing the state to overturn the so-called "ag-gag" law. The law, which lawmakers passed in February, was backed by Idaho's $2.5 billion annual dairy industry.
Winmill, in his 33-page ruling, rejected the state's argument that Idaho's law doesn't implicate constitutional concerns under the 1st or 14th Amendments. Instead, he found that the claims directly implicate free speech, equal-protection and whistleblower concerns under the 1st and 14th Amendments and under federal law, and that the case should proceed to examine those claims. "The ultimate question of whether (the new law) ... is unconstitutional remains for another day," the judge wrote.
The ruling notes that even false speech - like misrepresenting oneself on an employment application to gain access to a dairy, which the new law makes a crime - can be protected free speech. "False statements that do not constitute defamation, fraud or perjury are fully protected speech," Winmill wrote, citing a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case. He also noted that making videotaping a crime can be a restriction on free speech - because only those who publish the resulting videos likely would be punished. Indirectly, that makes the restriction on videotaping a restriction on publishing the resulting videos. Click below for a full report from AP reporter Kimberlee Kruesi.
Idaho's request to dismiss dairy lawsuit denied
By KIMBERLEE KRUESI, Associated Press
BOISE, Idaho (AP) — A federal judge has denied Idaho's request to dismiss a lawsuit arguing that the recently passed law criminalizing surreptitious recording at agriculture facilities is unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill said in a ruling issued Thursday that the case raises First Amendment concerns because it restricts protected speech. Idaho had argued the law does not implicate any constitutional concerns under the First or 14th Amendments.
"The ultimate question of whether (the new law) is unconstitutional remains for another day," Winmill wrote in his 33-page ruling.
However, Winmill added that he is dismissing Gov. C. L. "Butch" Otter as a defendant from the case because Otter does not directly oversee enforcing the law.
A coalition of animal rights, civil liberties and environmental groups are suing the state to overturn what they call an "ag-gag" law.
The law, which lawmakers passed in February, was backed by Idaho's $2.5 billion annual dairy industry after videos showing cows being abused at a southern Idaho dairy were released in 2012. The Los Angeles-based animal rights group Mercy for Animals released the videos that showed workers at Bettencourt Dairy —one of the state's largest dairies— beating and dragging cows.
The group contends that the law curtails freedom of speech and makes gathering proof of animal abuse a crime with a harsher punishment than the penalty for animal cruelty itself.
Winmill wrote that any laws criminalizing false speech — such as lying on employment application like the new law criminalizes— deserve extra scrutiny because most false statements are still protected.
"False statements that do not constitute defamation, fraud, or perjury are fully protected speech," Winmill wrote. "False speech is still speech — period."
Because only those who release undercover video or audio recordings on agriculture facilities would be punished, Winmill noted the law can be seen as a restriction of free speech. Consequently, this not only restricts video and audio recording but also restricts publishing those recordings.
Copyright 2014 The Associated Press
