I'm finding the debate about 'ag-gag' laws interesting. These are laws designed to prosecute those who film farm operations involving livestock with a view to exposing animal cruelty,

Those on the right have been beating the drum around enhanced surveillance laws with the old mantra 'if you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear' but seem to have done a complete back flip on this issue. But then so have those on the left who have railed against security laws but support those with cameras surveilling primary production facilities.

My own position is that 'ag-gag' laws are pretty unnecessary as laws against trespass are already in the books. If a farmer/producer employs some one to work on their property and that person sees something that is evidently against the law then obtaining evidence of that wrongdoing I would have thought was almost obligatory.

The grey are is of course where the farmer may well be within the law but graphic images of the conditions animals can be legally kept in can be distressing and detrimental to thier business. Again I don't have a problem with this as consumers should be aware of the process that ultimately delivers meat to their plates. From there it is their choice if they wish to eat food produced in a less than humane manner.

In the end the proposed laws may well be self defeating and I can already see the 'ag-gag free' stickers that will be appearing, possibly from places like this;
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-09/open-gate-policy-true-free-range-measure-for-pork-farmer/5730768?WT.ac=localnews_melbourne

Dear SteeleRedux,

Another interesting topic.

Farmers have a right to say who comes onto their
properties. Animals have a right to be treated
with dignity and respect. Consumers have a right
to know where their products come from and under
what conditions. So this is a bit of a conundrum.
Whose rights come first?

I guess, that I have to go with - any bill or law
that punishes those who expose abusive conditions
on farms can't be good. The animal farming
industries need to be held accountable for their
actions and as you have already pointed out -
laws against trespassing do exist.

There are two sides to every story it is said,

<Animal libbers 'act like terrorists'
By Rachel Wells
August 28, 2005

RSPCA president Hugh Wirth believes extreme and violent tactics similar to those being used by animal rights activists in Britain and the USA are also being employed by some radical animal liberation groups in Australia.

"It's getting worse," said Dr Wirth, who, on the advice of Victoria Police, recently hired bodyguards after three members of Animal Liberation Victorian threw red paint over him at a charity dinner last October.

"Not only are they breaking into properties and causing damage, but in the last 12 months they have started attacking humans, too, and I've been one of them."

Dr Wirth said the animal liberation movement in Australia was moving from activism to terrorism.

"The truth is that a lot of these people are simply terrorist-minded renegades who dress up their behaviour as being quite acceptable because they are protecting animals," he said.

Dr Wirth said there were animal activists operating in Australia with links to Britain's notorious Animal Liberation Front, responsible for a campaign of intimidation against the owners of a Staffordshire guinea pig farm that culminated in desecration of the grave of a relative of the farm operator.>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/animal-libbers-act-like-terrorists/2005/08/27/1124563067500.html

There are indeed two sides to every story:

http://www.rspcawatchdog.org/articles/whatswrong.htm

While I hate the thought of any animal being mistreated, I am of the opinion that violent animal rights protesters can't be that interested in animal welfare if they are willing to advocate harm to other human beings.

These sorts of protesters must surely join these protests just so they can practice violence on others.....because they are violent people.
They should rightly be jailed.

Dear Suse,

I also am against the use of violence.
And agree that those who break our laws
should be punished. Violence should not
be tolerated. The Animal
Liberation group, which has five branches
around the country, each with their own
governing bodies - has always advocated
non-violence and I wasn't aware that this
had so drastically changed.

http://www.alv.org.au/about.php