A Philosopher's Blog

Should Photographing Chickens Be a Felony?

Posted in Business, Ethics, Law, Philosophy, Politics by Michael LaBossiere on March 10, 2011
Florida Senate

Image via Wikipedia

I stumbled across SB 1246 by chance rather than design, but I did find it a rather interesting bit of legislation. Trespassing onto a farm will result in a felony charge. Taking pictures at a farm without permission will also result in a felony charge. Lest you think I am making this up, I have pasted in the full text:

Florida Senate - 2011                                    SB 1246 
        

       By Senator Norman

       12-01071A-11                                          20111246__
    1                        A bill to be entitled
    2         An act relating to farms; prohibiting a person from
    3         entering onto a farm or photographing or video
    4         recording a farm without the owner’s written consent;
    5         providing a definition; providing penalties; providing
    6         an effective date.
    7
    8  Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
    9
   10         Section 1. (1) A person who enters onto a farm or other
   11  property where legitimate agriculture operations are being
   12  conducted without the written consent of the owner, or an
   13  authorized representative of the owner, commits a felony of the
   14  first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083,
   15  or s. 775.084, Florida Statutes.
   16         (2) A person who photographs, video records, or otherwise
   17  produces images or pictorial records, digital or otherwise, at
   18  or of a farm or other property where legitimate agriculture
   19  operations are being conducted without the written consent of
   20  the owner, or an authorized representative of the owner, commits
   21  a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s.
   22  775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, Florida Statutes.
   23         (3) As used in this section, the term “farm” includes any
   24  tract of land cultivated for the purpose of agricultural
   25  production, the raising and breeding of domestic animals, or the
   26  storage of a commodity.
   27         Section 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2011.

I would think that part one is unnecessary. After all, existing trespassing laws should adequately cover people trespassing on farms and hence no new law should be needed to cover such situations. Unless, of course, owners of farms somehow deserve legal protections that the rest of us are not entitled to enjoy. Naturally, it can be argued that if trespassing on a construction site is a felony (as it is in Florida), then farm owners can help themselves to whatever justifications were given in support of that law. However, there does not seem to be a compelling reason to make trespassing on a farm such a serious offense.

The second part of the law, at first glance, seems rather bizarre. After all, a felony charge is supposed to be reserved for the serious offenses such as aggravated assault, rape, and murder. Snapping a photo of a chicken or taking a film of a cow without permission hardly seems to be a serious offense worthy of the sort of punishment that goes along with a felony. I hope that there will be clear warning markers placed all over such farms. After all, someone who was driving by a farm and decided to snap a photo of some cows and a sunset would be committing a felony and would probably have no idea of the terrible crime they were committing. After all, that is not the sort of thing that a sensible person would regard as criminal activity. I also hope that kids who go on farm tours will be warned prior to taking pictures. While the day might begin with smiles, it would surely end in tears when little Billy and Sally are dragged away by the Farm Police for snapping those pictures of a cow, pig or chicken without written permission.

It might be claimed that the law would be applied with “common sense”, so that the police would not arrest tourists who unknowingly snap a photo of cows at sunset or if someone happens to live by a farm and gets a part of the farm when taking a photo on her own land. However, the law is rather clear in its statement about what is a felony offense (namely any photos of farms) and it seems unreasonable to expect people to rely on the common sense of others as a barrier to felony charges. After all, the law itself seems to have been written by someone lacking such sense and if it passes, then that would be more evidence of a lack of common sense.

I suspect that the law is intended to intimidate and prosecute people who are concerned about conditions on farms. Folks who worry about whether animals are treated ethically or whether the conditions are sanitary or not would be the sort of folks likely to intrude on farms and take pictures. Not surprisingly, farm owners who have something to hide (like poor conditions) would be rather concerned about having such a legal club in place. As such, it might be suspected that Sb 1246 was created at the behest of folks who would rather not have the public know about what really goes on at their farms.

Naturally, it might be replied that farms have been subject to intrusions by animal rights activists and health activists and, as such, need special legal protection to keep these people from causing trouble. However, it would seem that the farm industry should have to deal with these problems like the rest of us, by getting restraining orders and so on against repeat offenders. Otherwise one might suspect that a special class of people are getting special privileges that are primarily intended to keep their operations from the light of day.

If the farms are acting well within the realm of humane treatment and sanitary operations, then they should have nothing to worry about. If people do trespass, they can be arrested for trespassing. If they take pictures of things, then there seem to be two main possibilities. The first is that the photos show that nothing is wrong. In this case, there hardly seems to be a compelling reason to make this a felony on par with murder. The second is that the photos show inhumane treatment, unsanitary conditions, or other such things. In that case, revealing such things should hardly be considered a felony offense but rather a public service on par with reporting a crime.

It might also be argued that there are farm secrets that the farm owners must protect. If there are such legitimate secrets, it would seem that those would also be protected under existing laws and hence this new law would not be needed.

Enhanced by Zemanta
About these ads

9 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. T. J. Babson said, on March 10, 2011 at 8:18 am

    Exposing misguided legislation like this is why a free press is indispensable.

    The press may want to look into Senator Norman’s financial relationship with the agriculture industry as well.

  2. A J MacDonald said, on March 10, 2011 at 9:38 am

    It’s odd, too, that, according to the feds, it’s open season on baby humans (i.e., abortion on demand and Roe v.Wade) yet the American symbol, the bald eagle, is protected from ham by federal law.

    “The bald eagle will continue to be protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act even though it has been delisted under the Endangered Species Act. This law, originally passed in 1940, provides for the protection of the bald eagle and the golden eagle (as amended in 1962) by prohibiting the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, of any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg, unless allowed by permit (16 U.S.C. 668(a); 50 CFR 22). “Take” includes pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb (16 U.S.C. 668c; 50 CFR 22.3). The 1972 amendments increased civil penalties for violating provisions of the Act to a maximum fine of $5,000 or one year imprisonment with $10,000 or not more than two years in prison for a second conviction. Felony convictions carry a maximum fine of $250,000 or two years of imprisonment. The fine doubles for an organization. Rewards are provided for information leading to arrest and conviction for violation of the Act.”

    http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/protect/laws.html

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on March 11, 2011 at 12:28 pm

      Well, it isn’t truly open season on baby humans. After all, abortion is a rather narrow range of legal killing.

      However, the abortion laws do have what might strike some as a unusual feature, namely that who is doing the killing is the main factor in deciding whether it is legal or illegal.

      • Asur said, on March 12, 2011 at 3:50 am

        Actually, that is rather unusual; the argument for abortion not being murder usually rests on the abortee essentially being part of the mother’s body and hence something she has rights over.

        I’ve at least heard of cases, though, such as pregnant women being killed in crashes with drunk drivers, where the driver at fault was charged with two deaths, the mother and her child-to-be. But, by the reasoning supporting abortion, that would only be one death.

        It seems that there’s a double standard somewhere in all this.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on March 12, 2011 at 1:46 pm

          That does seem to be a double standard, at least on the face of it. After all, if abortion is acceptable, then the fetus would seem to have a legal status that permits it to be killed. Of course, the usual line is the special relationship between the woman and her fetus. This could be cast as being analogous to a property right: I can bust my stuff, but you cannot (legally).

  3. [...] I stumbled across SB 1246 by chance rather than design, but I did find it a rather interesting bit of legislation. Trespassing onto a farm will result in a felony charge. Taking pictures at a farm without permission will also result in a felony charge. Lest you think I am making this up, I have pasted in the full text: Florida Senate – 2011 SB 1246    By Senato … Read More [...]

  4. Greg Camp said, on March 10, 2011 at 4:19 pm

    Once again, we see an example of people who want to make felonies out of annoyances. The motivation is, of course, to protect farmers against animal rights activists, but as you observe, there are legal protections already.

    I don’t think the person who stops on the side of the road to snap a picture has anything to worry about, though. That’s not trespassing. Neither is the child who has been invited as part of a tour.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on March 11, 2011 at 12:25 pm

      Under current law, the tourist and the child have nothing to worry about. But, under the proposed law the tourist who snaps a shot of a cow on a farm would be committing a felony. True, the farmer might not call down the law on the miscreant, but s/he could. The child on a tour would need additional written permission to take photos, so if that were left out the child would be committing a felony. True, they probably would not bust the kid, but this merely helps show that the proposed law is absurd.

  5. FRE said, on March 10, 2011 at 11:41 pm

    There are all sorts of strange laws. At one time, Tennessee had a law which stated that if two trains meet at a crossing, neither should advance until the other has moved forward.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,087 other followers

%d bloggers like this: