Tag: New York Times

A Ban on Farm-Filming?

Animal-welfare activists have scored much publicity success by releasing hidden-camera videos that they say document the mistreatment of animals at farms and slaughterhouses. Now, at the behest of farm interests, lawmakers in Iowa, Florida, and Minnesota are proposing laws seeking to criminalize the making and even possession of such videos. According to the New York Times, the Iowa bill, which has passed the lower house of the legislature in Des Moines:

would make it a crime to produce, distribute or possess photos and video taken without permission at an agricultural facility. It would also criminalize lying on an application to work at an agriculture facility “with an intent to commit an act not authorized by the owner.”

From a libertarian perspective, there’s so much wrong with these bills that it’s hard to know where to begin. Maybe with the bills’ ridiculous overbreadth and over-punitiveness—the Florida proposal, for example, apparently would ban even roadside photography of farms, and send offenders to prison for as much as thirty years. In proposing a (very likely unconstitutional) ban on even the possession of improperly produced videos, the Iowa bill, ironically or otherwise, echoes the tireless legislative efforts of some animal rights activists over the years to ban even possession of videos depicting dogfights and other instances of animal cruelty, for example.

The fact is that we already criminalize too much photo-taking. Depending on where you live, it may be unlawful to snap photos in a busy transit hub, or videotape the police officer who’s conducting an arrest; New Jersey is now considering a law that could ban much picture-taking of children in public places. To be sure, farmers and food processors also have rights deserving of respect, but the core of those rights should be the right to post a notice of “No photography on premises” and then seek civil (as distinct from criminal, in the absence of forcible entry) remedies against visitors or employees who ignore it.

Relatedly, the New York Times invited me to join a “Room for Debate” discussion today on farm animal welfare and my contribution is here. My suggestions that the federal government leave the issue to the states, and that the development of a market in more expensive but humanely raised meat is to be welcomed, brought down predictable outrage from some readers, whose comments included, “The ‘free-market’ litany is a lying crock” and, “It would be a very good thing if meat became unaffordable to most ordinary people.”

Not so relatedly, I am happy to report that the Environmental Protection Agency has finally backed off its position that dairy farmers must build elaborate containment structures to guard against milk spills on the theory that—milk containing butterfat and all—those mishaps should be legally construed as “oil spills.” I had criticized the agency’s interpretation here and here.

René Magritte’s War

The Belgian painter René Magritte is famous in part for the painting pictured below.

What’s surprising is how much Magritte can tell us about our war in Libya. To recap where we are in Libya, our military objective is to “protect civilians” in that country. Except there’s this paragraph opening the recent New York Times article on the war:

WASHINGTON — NATO planners say the allies are stepping up attacks on palaces, headquarters, communications centers and other prominent institutions supporting the Libyan government, a shift of targets that is intended to weaken Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s grip on power and frustrate his forces in the field.

The Times also runs these quotes from officials in charge of the war:

“Now we are going after his rear echelon,” one NATO official said. “We are going after his ability to command and control his forces — his headquarters, his command posts, his communications — all those things that allow him to coordinate his attacks at the front.”

Military officials privately acknowledge that removing Colonel Qaddafi from power is the desired secondary effect of striking at state television and other symbols of his authoritarian rule. “His people may see the futility of continued resistance,” one Pentagon official said.

Somebody should probably loop in poor White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who made the mistake just yesterday of saying the following:

“The goal of the mission is clear: protect the civilian population, enforce the no-fly zone, enforce the arms embargo. [It is] certainly not the policy of the coalition, of this administration, to decapitate, if you will, or to effect regime change in Libya by force.”

So let’s work this out. The United States currently has as a policy objective in Libya to remove Muammar Qaddafi from power. Washington is simultaneously using the military to attack “institutions supporting the Libyan government” in order to “weaken Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s grip on power,” but our official position is that doing so is unrelated to our policy objective of getting Qaddafi out of power. Does the administration really think we’re that stupid? Perhaps more importantly, is Congress that stupid?

Also, it may be time for a rundown of terms for which we no longer have adequate working definitions. I nominate:

  • “war”
  • “kinetic military action”
  • “protect”
  • “civilians”
  • “protect civilians”
  • “massacre”
  • “regime change”
  • “target”

Any other nominees?

Not Possible in This Dimension

Over at the Fordham Institute, Senior Fellow Peter Meyer continues the assault on logic that Fordham has insisted on perpetrating when it comes to national curriculum standards. Writing about a New York Times story on the deceptive curriculum “guidelines” manifesto released by a number of national-standards supporters earlier this week, Meyer declares that:

Contrary to popular belief (especially in some Tea Party circles), a national curriculum, done properly, does not threaten local control.  As we learn in this story, plenty of folks, including Randi Weingarten and our own Checker Finn, have signed on to a “common curriculum,” which its proponents say will constitute only about half of a school’s “academic time.”

Maybe I’m missing some very small but incredibly powerful wrinkle in the logic here, but it seems to me that by definition forcing local districts to use national standards must threaten local control. Indeed, it must not only threaten it, it must actually defeat it. And this is in no way changed by the curriculum having to account for “only about half” of a school’s time: Hours formerly controlled locally are now controlled nationally, which is inescapably a major incursion on local control.

Maybe in some dimension white is black, black is white, and ants are really walruses. But in this dimension, as far as I know, the laws of reality and logic must still apply – even to national curriculum standards.

Obamacare Defenders Grasping at Straw Men

Last week saw a splash of publicity for defenders of Obamacare’s constitutionality.  First, Yale law prof Akhil Amar had a hyperbolic op-ed in the L.A. Times, prompting a thorough fisking by Tim Sandefur, Ilya Somin, and me (among others). Then Harvard law prof Larry Tribe (who has written for the Cato Supreme Court Reviewhad one in the New York Times.  Here’s an excerpt:

Since the New Deal, the court has consistently held that Congress has broad constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. This includes authority over not just goods moving across state lines, but also the economic choices of individuals within states that have significant effects on interstate markets. By that standard, this law’s constitutionality is open and shut. Does anyone doubt that the multitrillion-dollar health insurance industry is an interstate market that Congress has the power to regulate?

Well, actually, Prof. Tribe, you’re asking and answering the wrong questions, as I say in my letter to the editor that appeared in the Sunday Times:

First, this is indeed a “novel” issue for the Supreme Court: Never before has the federal government asserted the power to require people to engage in economic activity under the guise of regulating commerce.

Second, those challenging the law do not question Congress’s power to regulate the “multitrillion-dollar health insurance industry,” but rather distinguish such regulation from a command for individuals to purchase that industry’s products.

Third, the difference between activity and inactivity is anything but “illusory”; if Congress can regulate mere decisions, then it can tell me, for example, that I shouldn’t spend time writing letters to the editor.

And finally, imagining that Justice Antonin Scalia would support the government here because he previously ratified prohibitions on the production and consumption of marijuana is to remove the very activity-inactivity distinction that he recognized in that earlier opinion.

Most recently, the Times itself editorialized against the views Randy Barnett presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee – and Randy replied here

Setting aside the issue of why Congress is only now getting around to holding hearings on the constitutionality of a fundamental piece of legislation it passed nearly a year ago, it’s clear now at least that the proponents of limitless, extra-constitutional government are running scared.  Obamacare delenda est.

The New York Times’ Glib Call for Internet and Software Regulation

You have to read all the way to the end to get exactly what the New York Times is getting at in its Sunday editorial, ”Netizens Gain Some Privacy.”

Congress should require all advertising and tracking companies to offer consumers the choice of whether they want to be followed online to receive tailored ads, and make that option easily chosen on every browser.

That means Congress—or the federal agency it punts to—would tell authors of Internet browsing software how they are allowed to do their jobs. Companies producing browser software that didn’t conform to federal standards would be violating the law.

In addition, any Web site that tailored ads to their users’ interests, or the networks that now generally provide that service, would be subject to federal regulation and enforcement that would of necessity involve investigation of the data they collect and what they do with it.

Along with existing browser capabilities (Tools > Options > Privacy tab > cookie settings), forthcoming amendments to browsers will give users more control over the information they share with the sites they visit. That exercise of control is the ultimate do-not-track. It’s far preferable to the New York Times’ idea, which has the Web user issuing a request not to be tracked and wondering whether government regulators can produce obedience.

Well, Bush Got Two Terms

From a New York Times report on NBC’s interview:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney …  said President Obama is likely to be a one-term president because his policies are unpopular with the public.

“His overall approach to expanding the size of government, expanding the deficit, and giving more and more authority and power to the government over the private sector,” Mr. Cheney said in an interview with Jamie Gangel for NBC News. “Those are all weaknesses, as I look at Barack Obama. And I think he’ll be a one term President.”

I recall the Bush-Cheney administration also came under criticism for “expanding the size of government, expanding the deficit, and giving more and more authority and power to the government,” and it didn’t prevent him from being reelected.

The Constitutional Vision of The New York Times, Again

What is it about the editorialists at The New York Times? Again today they’re ridiculing the decision by the new House to begin its business yesterday by reading the Constitution aloud. On Tuesday, with great pomposity themselves, the editors called the anticipated reading “a theatrical production of unusual pomposity.” Then in a nasty little editorial today entitled “The United States Consti …tion” — that’s not a typo; that’s their headline — they criticize House leaders for deciding not to read the “obsolete or offensive” parts of the document that are no longer law due to subsequent amendment. The Constitution was read, that is, as it exists today, which hardly seems surprising.

But it’s far more than surprising to the Times, apparently, because this “rewriting of history” deprives us of yet another opportunity to wallow in the unpleasant episodes of our past, as the Times and its followers so love to do – American unexceptionalism and all. Indeed, those offensive provisions “were written by a group of men that many in the Tea Party and elsewhere seem to consider infallible and nearly divine.”

It’s hard to make this stuff up; you have to simply quote it. Which brings us to the point of the editorial: What really troubles the Times, you see, is that Republican leaders “missed a chance to demonstrate that this document is not nailed to the door of the past. It remains vital precisely because it can be reimagined.” Well, yes, we have “reimagined” the Constitution from time to time — by amendment. But that’s not quite what the Times has in mind. No, the editors grant that the Constitution “was a work of political genius” (despite those offensive parts?), but “largely because its authors handed its interpretation to the open minds of posterity.” Through amendment? Well, not entirely, or even mainly, in today’s context. In their Tuesday piece, they revealed their hand — hardly a surprise — when they spoke of constitutional text “that the founders wisely left open to generations of reinterpretation.”

So it’s not just by amendment that we change our fundamental law: that’s how the Civil War generation removed offensive parts, legitimately; and that’s how women got the vote. But there’s another way to amend the Constitution, too — by “reinterpreting” its text. That’s how the New Dealers did it, as I discussed in this space yesterday and have more fully elsewhere. After Roosevelt’s infamous Court-packing threat, a cowed Supreme Court turned the Constitution on its head: by reading shields against power as swords of power; by turning a Constitution for limited government into one of virtually unlimited government. That’s fine with the Times. It’s not with the people the Tea Party sent to Washington, and that’s why the Times has them in its sights. What the Times champions is not constitutionalism. It’s politics. They won’t say it. We will.