Judge Says Animal Activists Can Secretly Record at Work
A U.S. District Court judge handed a victory late last week to animal-rights advocates by declaring that parts of North Carolina鈥檚 Property Protection Act violated the First Amendment鈥檚 free-speech provisions.
Legislators passed the act in 2015 as activists were publishing evidence of cruelty at North Carolina animal-agriculture operations. Supporters of the act argued that activists should not be allowed to misrepresent themselves to get hired and sneak cameras into the workplace.
鈥淚 don鈥檛 think an employee, or somebody doing deceptive things, ought to be able to go and collect evidence of whatever wrongdoing that鈥檚 out there,鈥 said Republican Rep. Chuck McGrady during the debate. 鈥淚t鈥檚 personal property, folks. It鈥檚 something that鈥檚 protected in our constitution.鈥
Lawmakers crafted the measure so that it didn鈥檛 look like other states鈥 ag-gag bills. Instead of imposing criminal penalties, the bill allowed employers to sue employees who plant hidden cameras, make secret recordings, capture or remove documents from their workplaces, or interfere with the 鈥減ossession of real property.鈥 And it didn鈥檛 single out agriculture.
The judge鈥檚 73-page ruling last week delicately dissected the law. Some provisions, he wrote, violated the First Amendment on their face. Others were unconstitutional when applied to the type of undercover work done by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF).
Employers could still sue their workers for constitutionally unprotected acts, he wrote鈥攆or example, 鈥渙pening a gate to let livestock out.鈥
Source: Successful Farming