[Vision2020] Otter Signs Ag-Gag Bill

Scott Dredge scooterd408 at hotmail.com
Sat Mar 1 13:16:43 PST 2014

Saundra wrote:

<Scott, you seem to be terribly confused.  Idaho’s ag gag law has nothing to do with privacy rights and everything to do with property rights, so you’re trying to compare apples & oranges.  Nice try, though  J>You'll get no argument from me about me being terribly confused.  Thanks for the dialogue in order to set things straight and hopefully enlighten me.
 <A more correct analogy would be that ag gag – and other anti-whistleblowing -- laws elevate property rights above the First Amendment, but I don’t suppose you’d like that more correct analogy.>I'm fine with that analogy and if it's constitutionally sound, then violators of ag-gag and other anti-whistle blowing laws can rest safe knowing that they can use the 1st Amendment if being prosecuted for breaking those unconstitutional laws which would result in those laws being struck down.  Nice to know.

 <Just for the sake of consistency, please confirm that you yourself object to whistleblower videos, photos, etc. of:  abuses, torture, and other unlawful behavior like those perpetrated at Abu Ghraib & Gitmo; documenting unsafe & illegal working conditions (like those documented by ag workers); unsafe & illegal environmental conditions on public & private lands like spills, radiation leaks, water & air contamination and the like; exposing abuses by those in authority; etc.>Au contraire - I have no objections.
 <And, just for the sake of consistency, please confirm that you yourself would have wanted Upton Sinclair prosecuted for writing The Jungle.>Ummm....nope.  I think I made it very clear below when I wrote verbatim that 'I'm in favor of investigative efforts by anyone that roots out wrongdoing.'  If you feel that was an ambiguous statement, how would you reword it yourself to make it much more crisp, clear, and not prone to misinterpretation by yourself or others?
 <And, just for the sake of consistency, please confirm that you yourself object to the double standard created by employers video taping, photographing, recording, etc. employees on the job, customers, and others while prohibiting employees, customers, and others from doing the same.>Confirmed - in general I'm against double standards including ones that would benefit me personally at the detriment of someone else.  I'm guessing that there might be some instances where a perceived double standard might make sense to me, but I'd need to address those on a case by case basis.  Specify any if you think you can uncover an inconsistency in my opinion, and you'll likely get me to change it to something more consistent unless I have some bias due to personal experience or broken logic.
 <Just for the sake of consistency, please confirm that you yourself object to the use of nanny cams in homes, day cares, schools, health care facilities, state & private mental health facilities, boot camp-type programs, “homes for the retarded,” etc. to expose abuses against those who cannot protect themselves.> Categorically deny because 'I'm in favor of investigative efforts by anyone that roots out wrongdoing.'
<Finally, just for the sake of consistency, please confirm that you yourself reject that investigative journalism is a necessary part of keeping business and government honest.>Categorically deny because 'I'm in favor of investigative efforts by anyone that roots out wrongdoing.'
<To answer your question, though, if I owned a business and my employees witnessed harmful illegal behavior I was too stupid to notice myself or just didn’t care about, I would have no objection to individuals documenting and reporting those illegal activities.  Absolutely none.>Is your statement above wrt 'having no objection to individuals documenting and reporting illegal activities' unequivocal or would you prefer that your employees follow your business's policies of reporting and documenting those alleged illegal activities first to you and/or to your HR department before perhaps unnecessarily taking these charges to the press and/or police in the event that such are unfounded and might do unnecessary harm to your business?
<And, if I had a nanny in my home who thought he/she was  witnessing abuse or neglect my children . . . or a pet sitter who thought he/she was witnessing abuse of my non-human family members . . . I would have no objections to said person documenting their concerns with videos, photos, etc. and providing same to the authorities for investigation.  Absolutely none.> Good to know.  Would you have any objections if Google (or any other search company) were to report alleged abuse when analyzing your internet searches?  Same thing if the NSA searched through metadata?  Seems like the ends would justify the means if such available information brought to light genuine abuse of any living thing close to you.

So are you still vehemently against the NSA and companies who offer 'free' services scanning internet traffic of everyone including some very bad people who hurt (or intend to hurt) other people and other living creatures?

<I look forward to your clarifications!>Let me know if you need anything else and definitely provide a response on NSA metadata & corporate scanning of your electronic communications.  As you pointed out previously, I'm naive not to be overly concerned about this.  Fear not, I'll complain mightily about the injustice of privacy intrusion when I get railroaded by the NSA or company spying on me but maybe you'll get some satisfaction in saying 'I told you so'.
  Saundra LundMoscow, ID It's a matter of taking the side if the weak against the strong, something the best people have always done.~ Harriet Beecher Stowe    From: Scott Dredge [mailto:scooterd408 at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 10:25 AM
To: Saundra Lund; viz
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Otter Signs Ag-Gag Bill Wow!  It seems like privacy is a double edged sword, isn't it?  You and Tom recently expressed your vehement outrage about how wrong and unethical it was for the NSA to be scanning metadata and for companies of so-called 'free' services (email accounts, search engines, etc.) to be recording your activity and scanning those records for information.  And now unsurprisingly you've flipped-flopped in favor of surreptitious video taping.  Just for the sake of consistency, please confirm that you yourself have absolutely no issue with being video taped against your knowledge on your own property and in your own home in order to ensure the you are not inflicting cruelty on <insert any living thing>.

For the record, I find animal cruelty to be reprehensible and I'm in favor of investigative efforts by anyone that roots out wrongdoing.

-Scott> From: v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 19:50:32 -0800
> Subject: [Vision2020] Otter Signs Ag-Gag Bill
> Just when I think Idaho can't possibly slide any further into GOP insanity,
> I'm proved wrong:
> http://www.kboi2.com/news/local/Ag-Gag-Bill-Idaho-Law-Governor-Butch-Otter-D
> airy-247886431.html
> This is beyond disgusting -- although not surprising -- that in Idaho, being
> a whistleblower is a bigger crime than tormenting and torturing sentient
> beings. And if you think this kind of despicable treatment of "farm"
> animals is rare in Idaho, you couldn't be more wrong. And, if you think
> this kind of abuse doesn't happen right here in Latah County, you're living
> in la-la land.
> Good job, Otter & you damn GOP lunatics. We'll now make it a point to make
> absolutely certain none of the meat or dairy products we purchase come from
> Idaho animals since you've decided to AGAIN condone animal abuse to protect
> agribuisness. The Idaho GOP has just done perhaps one of the smartest
> things possible to kill sustainability because the little guys will pay a
> bigger price than the factory farms when people like me stop buying animal
> product in a state that values the almighty dollar over protecting farm
> animals from rampant abuse. It's too bad those invested in sustainability
> didn't do a better job of speaking out against the ag-gag bill -- I was
> quite disappointed that while there has been some effective advocacy against
> GMOs, for raw milk, and in other issues, there seemed to be very little (if
> any) in-state organized opposition to the ag-gag bill. At least, according
> to the news articles I read. Pity.
> Saundra Lund
> Moscow, ID
> I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to
> protection by man from cruelty of man.
> ~ Mahatma Ghandi
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ======================================================= 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140301/84ba8bf2/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list