Whistleblower video curb would protect animals and food, says lawmaker (Part 3)
by Katerina Lorenzatos Makris
As part of a series of articles about a proposed law that would restrict undercover video and photography of possible animal abuse on Iowa farms, Animal Beat recently spoke by telephone with Iowa state Rep. Annette Sweeney, chief sponsor of the bill. Please see Q&A PART 3 below.
Background:
House File (HF) 589 would make it a felony to obtain unauthorized video and photos on Iowa crop and animal agriculture facilities, and impose penalties of prison time and fines that would be more severe than for the animal abuse such images might seek to expose.
Undercover photographs and videos seek to expose farmed animal abuse Photo: Compasssion Over Killing
Animal protection groups including Mercy for Animals, Compassion Over Killing, PETA, and The Humane Society of the United States have released a number of such videos and photos in recent years, with some resulting in law enforcement investigations, prosecutions, convictions, fines, and closures of animal agriculture facilities.
Many observers are concerned that the bill would violate the First Amendment right to free speech, inhibit whistleblowers, and set a precedent for other states to follow. The Iowa Senate might vote on it this week. A similar bill is pending in the Florida legislature.
Sweeney owns a cattle farm in central Iowa, where she lives along with 13 chickens, a cat, and a rescued golden retriever.
AB: Another thing that we hear a lot is that this bill raises First Amendment [freedom of speech] issues.
Sweeney: Nope. Doesn’t at all. In the First Amendment does it say that we can trespass with an intent to hurt somebody? Or with the intent to come onto somebody’s place without them saying that it’s OK? So the First Amendment doesn’t have anything to do with my bill.
AB: What if they’re not trespassing? What if they’ve already gained employment?
Sweeney: Then that’s the way it is. They report it. They report the abuse.
AB: Again, just so I understand, this bill is not only targeting people who specifically seek employment to do the undercover videos. It will cover just anybody—even if they’ve been employed for years, and they see something. They have to go get permission from the sheriff before they whip out their cell phones or their cameras.
Sweeney: Yes they should. Because if they see abuse, it’s going to happen again. It’s just—a lot of times it’s not a one-time thing. So they need to speak to the proper authorities—either the sheriff or their boss. And if their boss—because when they sign these code of ethics, it’s prescribed in there how they’re supposed to do it. And a lot of times people don’t understand that they’ve signed a code of ethics too before they’re hired.
AB: Again I’m bringing to you all the things that I hear as I write about these bills. Some people might look at this—some people do look at this—and again, they say, Rep. Sweeney, who’s the chief sponsor of the bill, she has an interest in it herself because she’s a farmer or an animal facility owner herself, and this is primarily coming from folks like her. What do you say to that?
Sweeney: I would say, animal husbandry, the health and safety of my animals—I am concerned about it. I’m very concerned about the health and safety of my animals.
AB: So this to you does not feel like a special interest kind of legislation.
Sweeney: No. No, not at all. And thank you for asking because it covers everything from my 13 chickens all the way up to other livestock facilities.
AB: So even smaller facilities are covered. Mom and pop type farms.
Sweeney: Exactly, exactly. I’ve heard almost more from the mom and pop operations than the large livestock facilities, to tell you the truth.
AB: You mean comments from voters and the public?
Sweeney: Positive.
AB: You‘re saying that you’re hearing from a lot of folks who have small farms and are concerned about these issues as well?
Sweeney: Yes.
AB: I haven’t seen it yet, but I was told that there was a poll done by Mason-Dixon, I think it was organized by a couple of animal protection groups—I’m sorry I don’t have the details on this—but have you heard about this poll? From what I was told, it found that 63%--I believe it was 63%--of Iowans are opposed to this bill.
Sweeney: First of all I don’t know who did the poll, who was polled, how many people were polled. Ten people? Sixty-three percent of ten people? I don’t take too much account in polls. And again, did they poll my mom and pops who are concerned about the health and safety of their animals? So I don’t really look at that.
AB: I heard, I believe it was from Rep. Lykam, who said that to his knowledge the bill had been referred back to the Ag (Agriculture) Committee because someone—I think the speaker of the Senate—was concerned that the penalties for this type of undercover camera activity were harsher than the penalties for the actual animal abuse.
Sweeney: It passed out of the senate ag committee with no amendments. And they understood that because of the devastation at the larger facilities, and that it would wipe out a million dollars worth of pigs. You know, they understood that. So it came out just fine.
AB: So that doesn’t concern you. The idea, the concept that the penalties for videomaking, etc. are harder or steeper than for the animal abuse itself.
Sweeney: The reason why we have that in here is because of the larger devastation that can happen.
AB: So you’re saying that because of the consequences that it could bring on the industry, it deserves a higher penalty.
Sweeney: And people don’t understand the full consequences.
AB: What’s the next step now on House File 589?
Sweeney: We’re just waiting to see what the senate does with it. We’re still willing to work with them on it. It’s a work in progress and I think it’s a good progress, because, again, we’re keeping our animals safe by this bill.
For interviews with more policy makers and animal welfare leaders on this issue, please visit Animal Policy Examiner again soon.
Or subscribe to Animal Beat by signing our Guestbook to receive emails letting you know whenever there’s a new article. It’s free, private, and no other emails will bombard you.
Please note: Concerned citizens from outside the state may express opinions to Iowa legislators, but it is recommended that they identify themselves as non-Iowans.
