Reporting facts not a crime
28 Comments
- FILED UNDER
- Opinion
- Register Editorials
The Iowa House has passed a bill that would punish those who tell the truth.
Creating, producing or publishing evidence of conditions in a livestock facility would be a crime under legislation passed Thursday. Unlike some other questionable ideas originating in the Republican-dominated House, this one has support in the Senate, too.
The bill is aimed at animal-rights activists who would trespass on private property to create videos alleging acts of animal cruelty. But it doesn't stop there: Dissemination of that evidence - whether it be a newspaper, or a television station or a website - would also be a crime.
Creating, producing or publishing evidence of conditions in a livestock facility would be a crime under legislation passed Thursday. Unlike some other questionable ideas originating in the Republican-dominated House, this one has support in the Senate, too.
The bill is aimed at animal-rights activists who would trespass on private property to create videos alleging acts of animal cruelty. But it doesn't stop there: Dissemination of that evidence - whether it be a newspaper, or a television station or a website - would also be a crime.
In other words, publicly sharing truthful information about conditions inside a livestock facility would, under Iowa law, be subject to a criminal penalty.
This restraint of free speech cannot be squared with either the U.S. or the Iowa constitutions. If it could, then the government could have jailed editors of the New York Times for publishing the stolen Pentagon Papers 40 years ago or information from WikiLeaks today.
If the Senate does not stop this bill, the governor should veto it.
This restraint of free speech cannot be squared with either the U.S. or the Iowa constitutions. If it could, then the government could have jailed editors of the New York Times for publishing the stolen Pentagon Papers 40 years ago or information from WikiLeaks today.
If the Senate does not stop this bill, the governor should veto it.
There is room for debate about the definition of abuse in the case of animals destined for the slaughterhouse, but there should be no question that this law goes too far. Laws already exist to prevent trespassing or fraud to obtain such evidence, but apart from questions of ethics involved in documenting abusive treatment of animals, the question is whether the information produced is worth knowing. In some cases, it clearly may be worth knowing.
The government should not have the power to penalize anyone for publishing or distributing information on issues of public concern. The law should allow the people to see what happens in these facilities and to judge for themselves whether what goes on is right or wrong.
