Sides speak out in hearing over so-called ag-gag bill

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Farming groups told lawmakers Wednesday they need legal protection from people who shoot photos and videos of their private operations.

But critics of so-called ag-gag proposals say they are unnecessary and could violate constitutional rights to free speech.

The debate before the Economic Development Study Committee comes five months after House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, killed a bill that would have made it a crime to secretly shoot photos or video on private property with the goal of harming a business.

Lawmakers instead sent the proposal to the study committee for more deliberation.

At issue in part are videos or images that animal rights groups use to try to discredit farming operations. Sometimes those are obtained when members trespass on private property and other times when they’re on tours or working at the businesses.

On Wednesday, Josh Trenary, the director of business development at the Indiana Pork Producers Association, said the group has policies against animal abuse and is not arguing that such practices shouldn’t be exposed.

“But just as we don’t stand for animal abuse, we don’t support any illegal act like trespassing.” Trenary said.

The pork producers support strengthening laws against trespassing and making it illegal to obtain a job under false pretenses.

“We don’t want our farms to be exploited by any activist's agenda,” Trenary said.

But some of proposals under consideration last year would have gone farther by making it a crime for news organizations to run footage obtained secretly on private property. Lawmakers amended the legislation to strengthen the state’s trespassing laws, a proposal that seemed likely to become law.

But in the last days of the session, a broader version emerged that would have allowed prosecutors to charge individuals with trespassing – a Class A misdemeanor – if they secretly took photos or video on any private property and meant to do the business harm.

Critics said that could have ensnared someone taking photos at a restaurant to show a problem with their meal or an individual capturing images of a loved one’s bruises at nursing home to show to police.

That’s when Bosma killed the bill.

On Wednesday, supporters said protections for farmers are still needed.

The Indiana Farm Bureau’s Amy Cornell said that if a farmer takes the time and expense to put up a fence, it must be seen as a clear boundary line that the farmer does not want crossed.

“People have a right to explore and express their opinions but not at the expense of private-property rights of others,” she said. “Farmers do not need to give up their property rights just because they are farmers.”

But Dave Menzer, lobbyist for the Citizens Action Coalition, told the committee that farmers are not worried about trespassers; they’re worried about what they’ll find.

“We believe the intent of this ag-gag bill from the get-go has been to shield the public from what happens in a factory farm setting,” Menzer said. “Whether it's legal or not, if more people saw how some of these factory farm operations operated, they might change how they purchase their food.”

Steve Key, executive director of the Hoosier State Press Association, said state law already addresses many of the problems that farmers and businesses are raising.

“If the problem is trespassing, then there is criminal trespass and civil trespass, so there are options a property owner has.” said Key. “If a person starts voicing false accusations, there have always been laws against libel.”

But Key said the press association could support legislation that strengthens those laws.


  • Bad bill
    The Ag-Gag Bill seeks to hide animal cruelty.

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. Now if he'd just stay there...

  2. Daniel - what about the many US citizens who do NOT follow what the Bible teaches? The Hindus, Jews, Muslims and others who are all American citizens entitled to all rights as Americans?? This issue has NOTHING to do with "What the Bible says..." Keep all Churches separate from State! Pence's ongoing idiocy continues to make Indiana look like a backwards, homophobic state in the eyes of our nation. Can't we move on to bigger issues - like educating our kids?

  3. 1. IBJ should link to the referenced report. We are in the age of electronic media...not sharing information is lazy. Here is a link http://www.in.gov/gov/files/Blue_Ribbon_Panel_Report_July_9_2014.pdf 2. The article should provide more clarity about the make-up of this panel. The commenters are making this item out to be partisan, it does not appear the panel is partisan. Here is a list of the panel which appears to be balanced with different SME to add different perspectives http://www.in.gov/activecalendar/EventList.aspx?view=EventDetails&eventidn=138116?formation_id=189603 3. It suggests a by-pass, I do not see where this report suggests another "loop". 4. Henry, based on your kneejerk reaction, we would be better off if you moved to another state unless your post was meant as sarcasm in which case I say Well Done. 5. The article and report actually indicates need to improve rail and port infrastructure in direct contradiction to Shayla commentary. Specifically, recommendation is to consider passenger rail projects... 6. People have a voice with their elected officials. These are suggestions and do not represent "crony capitalism", etc. The report needs to be analyzed and the legislature can decide on priorities and spending. Don't like it, then vote in a new legislature but quit artificially creating issues where there are none! People need to sift through the politics and provide constructive criticism to the process rather than making uninformed comments in a public forum based on misinformation. IBJ should work harder to correct the record in these forums when blatant errors or misrepresentations are made.

  4. Joe ... Marriage is defined in the Bible ... it is mentioned in the Bible often. Marriage is not mentioned once in the US or Indiana Constitution ...

  5. Daniel - Educate me please: what does the Bible have to do with laws? If the government wasn't in the business of marriage to begin with, then it wouldn't have to "define" marriage at all. Marriage could be left as a personal, religious, or otherwise unregulated action, with no ties to taxes, legal status, etc. Then people could marry whomever they want, and all this silliness would go away. Remember to vote Libertarian in November.