Utah and the PETA folks

It appears that the state of Utah is also trying to make photographing agricultural operations without permission an offense, even if it is done from public property. I looked around and couldn't find it posted elsewhere and this came to me via PDN Online.

I can understand farmers frustrations with the PETA actions. I grew up on a farm and to the un-informed, many of the things that happen on a farm may seem out of place. No doubt that there are some that treat their animals badly but that is the very extreme minority, imo. The way I read this you couldn't even stop on the road and take a picture of the farm machinery in a sunset if one was to take this to the letter of the law. While I don't agree with such severe limits I also think it is only fair if someone wants to photograph something on someone's land that they should ask, whether they are taking it from public roadway or not.

Im perfectly fine with the law. It wouldnt of been passed in the first place if photographers werent doing what they shouldnt be.

Utah, a place I stay away from

Why are farms special so that they should not be subject to the general freedom of speech and coverage by the press or public? Why is the truth of what is happening in plain sight something that should be shielded? Why aren't the regular trespassing protections enough?

After all, if a farm was used to grow drugs, abuse children, spread illegal chemical waste, make massive bombs, or train terrorists shouldn't the public and press not be restricted from exposing the truth?

Its equally laughable that the law is needed only because of the illegal activities of photographers. There are already many laws that protect private property and regulate surveillance. We all know that private citizens, corporations, even our own government never ever ever violate US laws or the Constitution.

-Scott

The really clever criminals go into banking or politics. Well the REALLY clever ones go into banking, and if they cant get into banking then they will con the guilible into voting them int o office, after that its the Law.

Politicians will try to legislate bit by bit the tools that can then be used to oppress the people either purposely or unwittingly.

The Good politicians might think it's to help with fighting radicals and organised crime, not realising that it is another bit of freedom gone, and it might be very hard to rollback.

If something is a law too far then write to your political representative to let them know why a law or proposed law might be wrong. This is one of the small bits of influence a member of the public has.

The other is to VOTE which urm quite alot of American citizens do not do.
You might think that your vote is wasted but if you dont use it, it is definitely wasted.

It is good that this BAD/unnessecary bit of legislation has been brought to a wider awareness.

If it is passed, when it is ultimately challenged it will be struck down.

No it wont.

sspellman wrote in post #14060826
Why are farms special so that they should not be subject to the generally freedom of speech and coverage by the press or public? Why is the truth of what is happening in plain sight something that should be shielded? Why aren't the regular trespassing protections enough?

After all, if a farm was used to grow drugs, abuse children, spread illegal chemical waste, make massive bombs, or train terrorists shouldn't the public and press not be restricted from exposing the truth?

Its equally laughable that the law is needed only because of the illegal activities of photographers. There are already many laws that protect private property and regulate surveillance. We all know that private citizens, corporations, even our own government never ever ever violate US laws or the Constitution.

-Scott

So, farmers aren't entitled to the same protection as Lindsey Lohan?

Excerpt from California's "paparazzi law":

Note that physical trespass is not necessary.

What is a "visual enhancing device"? Does a telephoto lens qualify? (I'd say, probably, yes.)

Just so you know my perspective - I'm a former dairy farmer and have followed the activities of so-called animal rights groups for decades.

Here's a paragraph from the linked article, emphasis mine:

I read that to mean that it doesn't restrict photography on public property, unless the "the operation" is itself on public property. It doesn't even restrict photography from private property unless the owner of the operation has told you not to.

The issue is when livestock owners rent public land for grazing. Perhaps the constitutional question becomes, "Does that lease give the lessee the right to restrict photography on leased land?" As a former livestock owner, I would hope I have the right to restrict access to land that I was paying to use. For example, if I pay to rent a government building to hold a meeting, I should have the right to decide who is allowed to attend the meeting, and whether or not they can take pictures.

The National Press Photographers Association is famous for overreacting to photography restrictions, wrapping themselves in the First Amendment even when there is no constitutional issue. Methinks this is another such case.

RTPVid wrote in post #14061498
So, farmers aren't entitled to the same protection as Lindsey Lohan?

Excerpt from California's "paparazzi law":

Note that physical trespass is not necessary.

What is a "visual enhancing device"? Does a telephoto lens qualify? (I'd say, probably, yes.)

Actually-just the opposite. Everyone should have equal protection with no special exemptions for farms. If Utah wanted to pass a similar paparazzi law than I would have no concerns. The Cali Paparazzi Law does specify physical trespass or a reasonable expectation of privacy, when ANYTHING done in plain sight should have no expectation of privacy weather its on your front lawn clearly visible from the street or a farm visible from the street.

Should planting a few tomatoes now make my house a farm and give me special protection to sue those taking photos of me doing blow on my front porch?

sspellman wrote in post #14061640
Actually-just the opposite. Everyone should have equal protection with no special exemptions for farms. If Utah wanted to pass a similar paparazzi law than I would have no concerns. The Cali Paparazzi Law does specify physical trespass or a reasonable expectation of privacy, when ANYTHING done in plain sight should have no expectation of privacy weather its on your front lawn clearly visible from the street or a farm visible from the street.

It also specifies use of telephoto lens (my readying), so I guess any photo of a farm from the road across a 200 acre field without a telephoto or any other "visual enhancement" is fine. I don't think that is in PETA's sweet spot. A front lawn is NOT a good analog to a farm field. While everyone worries to death about freedom of expression, property rights are actually the fundamental liberty in the most imminent danger of disappearing.

sspellman wrote in post #14061640
Should planting a few tomatoes now make my house a farm and give me special protection to sue those taking photos of me doing blow on my front porch?

Quit with the silly strawman arguments, please.

sspellman wrote in post #14060826
Why are farms special so that they should not be subject to the general freedom of speech and coverage by the press or public? Why is the truth of what is happening in plain sight something that should be shielded? Why aren't the regular trespassing protections enough?

They make money. They pay lobbyists who influence the lawmakers. They donate money to the lawmakers to get the lawmakers to pass laws that won't stand up to Constitutional challenge, because the lawmakers know they don't have to give the money back.

BTW, a Florida legislator tried this & got shot down. It was tried in Minnesota too; not sure of the outcome.

If it gets passed, a PETA member will get him/herself arrested, and will then challenge the law and it will be struck down. Meanwhile, Utah looks even more whacko than they already do.

RTPVid wrote in post #14061498
So, farmers aren't entitled to the same protection as Lindsey Lohan?

Excerpt from California's "paparazzi law":

Note that physical trespass is not necessary.

What is a "visual enhancing device"? Does a telephoto lens qualify? (I'd say, probably, yes.)

sspellman wrote in post #14061640
Actually-just the opposite. Everyone should have equal protection with no special exemptions for farms. If Utah wanted to pass a similar paparazzi law than I would have no concerns. The Cali Paparazzi Law does specify physical trespass or a reasonable expectation of privacy, when ANYTHING done in plain sight should have no expectation of privacy weather its on your front lawn clearly visible from the street or a farm visible from the street.

Should planting a few tomatoes now make my house a farm and give me special protection to sue those taking photos of me doing blow on my front porch?

The key to the California law is "reasonable expectation of privacy". A farmer plowing a field out in the open 200 yards from a public road can't possibly have that expectation.

Preeb wrote in post #14062255
The key to the California law is "reasonable expectation of privacy". A farmer plowing a field out in the open 200 yards from a public road can't possibly have that expectation.

Actually, the key to the Cali law is that it also bans "visual enhancement devices", and distance provides some expectation of privacy unless there are "visual enhancement devices" (e.g. telephoto lenses). Walls are not the only thing that provides privacy.

Wouldnt it be easier to just ban peta?