Business videotaping ban clears Indiana House panel

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Taking videos and photos at farms and factories without permission would become illegal under a proposal endorsed Thursday by an Indiana House committee despite objections from critics who say it would punish whistleblowers and criminalize the exposure of the truth.

The proposal would make it a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail to take a photograph or video of a farm or industrial operation without the written consent of the property's owner unless the material is turned over to law enforcement or a regulatory agency within 48 hours.

Bill sponsor Rep. Bill Friend, R-Macy said the measure is aimed at stopping overzealous activists from defaming farms and businesses with misleading videos.

The House agriculture committee voted 9-3 Thursday to advance the bill to the full House. The Senate approved a version of the bill last month.

Rep. Sheila Klinker, D-Lafayette, said she opposes the bill because of concerns that it would prevent exposure of puppy mills or neglected horses, The Indianapolis Star reported.

While the prohibition on videotaping at farms has received much of the attention from opponents, Indiana AFL-CIO President Nancy Guyott said the bill would "absolutely" have a chilling effect on employees trying to expose dangerous conditions

Steve Key, executive director of the Hoosier State Press Association, said the bill has First Amendment issues, with what he called an unconstitutional prior restraint on people gathering news and information.

Key said those concerns weren't lessened by the provisions of no crime being committed if the information is given to authorities.

"Sometimes the problem is with the agencies that are supposed to be regulating," he said.

Other states, including Iowa and Utah, already have laws banning photography and videotaping on farmland.

"There is no constitutional right to gather news on private property," Bob Kraft, a lobbyist for Indiana Farm Bureau, told the committee last week.

House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, said Thursday he wasn't sure the bill was acceptable yet and that a constitutional lawyer was reviewing it for any First Amendment conflicts.

"We're analyzing it, but I haven't looked at the result of the committee yet, personally," Bosma said. "But we will, and we'll see if the bill needs further work."

The proposal has drawn some national attention, with longtime Republican strategist Mary Matalin recording a video for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals saying that it would wrongly punish whistleblowers reporting animal cruelty. Bassist Tony Kanal of the band No Doubt and former "The Price is Right" host Bob Barker have written letters to Bosma opposing the bill.


  • No Pictures Please
    As a private business owner I would not want someone to be able to take pictures or video of my operations without asking first. While I am not breaking the law, I understand that some people do. However, you should not be able to "spy" on everyone's business in order to track down a few criminals. There are other ways for whistleblowers to report illegal activity. Subpoenas can and should be obtained when there is ample evidence of wrongdoing. Also, if I have a proprietary process or product I would not want pictures or video to get in the hands of my competition. This bill should become law.
  • tim, you're wrong
    Tim...you really trust our government to be the sole authority and oversight entity within any business or industry? Just because you don't like PETA doesn't mean you should turn into a conspiracy theorist. There are thousands of books of whistleblowers within a company who exposed egregious things going on but I guess you'd rather turn a blind eye to those, huh?
  • Jury of Peers
    Well, if they do come after you I hope I get selected for your jury because I would never vote to punish you for taking photos of buildings, or farms. I am guessing that a good reporter will find "Monsanto Tracks" if they hunt a little longer.
  • Question
    I take photos of historic buildings (from the sidewalk) and post them on the web. If one of those buildings contains a business, will taking a photo of it make me a criminal?
    • Fletchmon
      What just because they want to sneak onto your property and make a film, edit it how they please, and try to demonize your business - that's ok with you?? It is reasonable to have a government agency do certifications to maintain standards, but this is not the role of extremist groups such as PETA
      • Hiding Something?
        So if these people are operating legally and have nothing to hide, why do we need this law. Seems like we need a law ALLOWING people to monitor these operations.

      Post a comment to this story

      We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
      You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
      Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
      No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
      We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

      Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

      Sponsored by

      facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
      Subscribe to IBJ
      1. From the story: "The city of Indianapolis also will consider tax incentives and funding for infrastructure required for the project, according to IEDC." Why would the City need to consider additional tax incentives when Lowe's has already bought the land and reached an agreement with IEDC to bring the jobs? What that tells me is that the City has already pledged the incentives, unofficially, and they just haven't had time to push it through the MDC yet. Either way, subsidizing $10/hour jobs is going to do nothing toward furthering the Mayor's stated goal of attracting middle and upper-middle class residents to Marion County.

      2. Ron Spencer and the entire staff of Theater on the Square embraced IndyFringe when it came to Mass Ave in 2005. TOTS was not only a venue but Ron and his friends created, presented and appeared in shows which embraced the 'spirit of the fringe'. He's weathered all the storms and kept smiling ... bon voyage and thank you.

      3. Not sure how many sushi restaurants are enough, but there are three that I know of in various parts of downtown proper and all are pretty good.

      4. First off, it's "moron," not "moran." 2nd, YOU don't get to vote on someone else's rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the US Constitution. That's why this is not a state's rights issue...putting something like this to vote by, well, people like you who are quite clearly intellectually challenged isn't necessary since the 14th amendment has already decided the issue. Which is why Indiana's effort is a wasted one and a waste of money...and will be overturned just like this has in every other state.

      5. Rick, how does granting theright to marry to people choosing to marry same-sex partners harm the lives of those who choose not to? I cannot for the life of me see any harm to people who choose not to marry someone of the same sex. We understand your choice to take the parts of the bible literally in your life. That is fine but why force your religious beliefs on others? I'm hoping the judges do the right thing and declare the ban unconstitutional so all citizens of Wisconsin and Indiana have the same marriage rights and that those who chose someone of the same sex do not have less rights than others.