The one I found most strange is the percentage of people who disagreed that it was okay for an EA org to break minor laws. I want to flag that animal orgs doing undercover operations receive no pushback from EA as far as I can see and that these are against the law. I can think of other things as well that the EA community condones or doesn’t criticize. Not saying there isn’t a difference what is described here and the ones I listed above but it is strange to see that view.
Woah, the vast majority of undercover investigations carried out by animal advocacy organizations are legal, which is why attempts to make them illegal (such as ag-gag laws in the U.S.) receive so much attention and pushback, with many either not passing or being overturned. I would greatly caution against even casually suggesting an organization is engaged in illegal activity. That said, as you’re possibly getting at in your final sentence, there is a big difference between active, intentional civil disobedience as part of a strategic campaign effort and lax disregard for the law for personal convenience or gain.
It is entirely dependent on the type of investigation and the laws of the municipality. Regarding trespass, often investigators will be employed by the facility they are investigating and onsite as part of their employment, while documenting conditions on camera. Increasingly, drone footage is used.
I think it is dangerous and harmful to make a blanket and public statement accusing a large number of orgs/individuals of illegal activity.
I would have expected that becoming an employee in order to record videos and publish them would be a violation of the employment contracts. Certainly in my industry (finance) employees are not allowed to record sensitive information and publish it (though they can whistle-blow to the regulator if they want). Is there some rule or principle that makes it legal to break confidentiality clauses in these cases, or do farms just not bother to include them in contracts?
Additionally, my impression was that it often was illegal to fly drones over private property without permission, especially if you are invading privacy.
Update: the Eight Circuit has just upheld a ban in Iowa on using deception to gain employment in order to cause economic harm to the employer. So my guess is these investigations are illegal now, at least in Iowa.
At least harder. One loophole for these kinds of laws is that the intent to deceive has to be there at the time the false employment statement was made. As a commenter on the linked post noted by analogy, loan fraud exists when you never intended to repay, not when you decided not to after getting the loan.
“Illegal” can be a tricky word when talking about private-party civil liability, because it can conjure up violation of criminal or at least public-regulatory law.
Also, I wouldn’t assume all low-wage workers even have an employment contract. Often, US employers really don’t want their employee handbooks characterized as an employment contract because that would give employees more rights.
Suing an individual activist or a tiny org in tort or contract law can easily backfire via the Streisand effect. Anyone with serious money may be savvy enough not to cross the line into conduct that would impose liability on them or their org. Generally can’t go after the media for republishing the info in the US; it isn’t defamatory.
I think an even more relevant question would be “Is it OK to order your employees to break laws, when their job description did not mention civil disobedience campaigns or give any other indication that they would be required to break laws as part of their job?”
I was also surprised by this, and I wonder how many people interpreted “It is acceptable for an EA org to break minor laws” as “It is acceptable for an EA org to break laws willy-nilly as long as it feels like the laws are ‘minor’”, rather than interpreting it as “It is acceptable for an EA org to break at least one minor law ever”.
How easy is it to break literally zero laws? There are an awful lot of laws on the books in the US, many of which aren’t enforced.
I answered disagree, interpreting it in context as “is it acceptable for an EA org to break laws similar in magnitude to driving without a license and purchasing illegal drugs, for personal convenience or profit?”. (Btw I don’t think these are minor. An unprepared driver can kill someone. You can get up to 5 years in prison for possessing marijuana in Puerto Rico.) I would be OK with an EA org engaging in some forms of civil disobedience (e.g. criticizing an authoritarian government that outlawed criticism) or accidentally breaking some obscure law that everyone forgot existed.
I’m not an expert on this, but I agree with Rockwell; my impression was that EA animal orgs try pretty hard to make sure their undercover investigations are done legally, so I don’t know if that’s a good comparison case. I’d be curious to hear the others that you reference.
As for why I think EA orgs shouldn’t beak minor laws: I think following the rules of society — even the inefficent ones — is a really good heuristic to avoid accidentally causing harm, incurring unexpected penalties, or damaging your reputation. In the context of this article, an EA org admitting to knowingly breaking a low-income jurisdiction’s laws on driver licenses because the fines are correspondingly low makes it seem like they don’t care about the spirit of the law (which is to protect Puerto Ricans on the road) or the general principle that it’s good to follow the rules of the society in which you are a visitor.
It’s kind of a caricature of the meme that wealthy people are above the law because they can just pay the fines. I don’t think playing into that is a great way to build a reputatiuon as an altruist.
The one I found most strange is the percentage of people who disagreed that it was okay for an EA org to break minor laws. I want to flag that animal orgs doing undercover operations receive no pushback from EA as far as I can see and that these are against the law. I can think of other things as well that the EA community condones or doesn’t criticize. Not saying there isn’t a difference what is described here and the ones I listed above but it is strange to see that view.
Woah, the vast majority of undercover investigations carried out by animal advocacy organizations are legal, which is why attempts to make them illegal (such as ag-gag laws in the U.S.) receive so much attention and pushback, with many either not passing or being overturned. I would greatly caution against even casually suggesting an organization is engaged in illegal activity. That said, as you’re possibly getting at in your final sentence, there is a big difference between active, intentional civil disobedience as part of a strategic campaign effort and lax disregard for the law for personal convenience or gain.
For those downvoting, is the disagreement factual, i.e. you believe animal orgs are routinely engaging in illegal activity? Or something else?
Are they not typically committing trespass if nothing else?
It is entirely dependent on the type of investigation and the laws of the municipality. Regarding trespass, often investigators will be employed by the facility they are investigating and onsite as part of their employment, while documenting conditions on camera. Increasingly, drone footage is used.
I think it is dangerous and harmful to make a blanket and public statement accusing a large number of orgs/individuals of illegal activity.
I would have expected that becoming an employee in order to record videos and publish them would be a violation of the employment contracts. Certainly in my industry (finance) employees are not allowed to record sensitive information and publish it (though they can whistle-blow to the regulator if they want). Is there some rule or principle that makes it legal to break confidentiality clauses in these cases, or do farms just not bother to include them in contracts?
Additionally, my impression was that it often was illegal to fly drones over private property without permission, especially if you are invading privacy.
Update: the Eight Circuit has just upheld a ban in Iowa on using deception to gain employment in order to cause economic harm to the employer. So my guess is these investigations are illegal now, at least in Iowa.
At least harder. One loophole for these kinds of laws is that the intent to deceive has to be there at the time the false employment statement was made. As a commenter on the linked post noted by analogy, loan fraud exists when you never intended to repay, not when you decided not to after getting the loan.
“Illegal” can be a tricky word when talking about private-party civil liability, because it can conjure up violation of criminal or at least public-regulatory law.
Also, I wouldn’t assume all low-wage workers even have an employment contract. Often, US employers really don’t want their employee handbooks characterized as an employment contract because that would give employees more rights.
Suing an individual activist or a tiny org in tort or contract law can easily backfire via the Streisand effect. Anyone with serious money may be savvy enough not to cross the line into conduct that would impose liability on them or their org. Generally can’t go after the media for republishing the info in the US; it isn’t defamatory.
People shouldn’t be downvoting Rockwell’s comment. She’s got more experience in this field than almost everyone.
I think an even more relevant question would be “Is it OK to order your employees to break laws, when their job description did not mention civil disobedience campaigns or give any other indication that they would be required to break laws as part of their job?”
I was also surprised by this, and I wonder how many people interpreted “It is acceptable for an EA org to break minor laws” as “It is acceptable for an EA org to break laws willy-nilly as long as it feels like the laws are ‘minor’”, rather than interpreting it as “It is acceptable for an EA org to break at least one minor law ever”.
How easy is it to break literally zero laws? There are an awful lot of laws on the books in the US, many of which aren’t enforced.
I answered disagree, interpreting it in context as “is it acceptable for an EA org to break laws similar in magnitude to driving without a license and purchasing illegal drugs, for personal convenience or profit?”. (Btw I don’t think these are minor. An unprepared driver can kill someone. You can get up to 5 years in prison for possessing marijuana in Puerto Rico.) I would be OK with an EA org engaging in some forms of civil disobedience (e.g. criticizing an authoritarian government that outlawed criticism) or accidentally breaking some obscure law that everyone forgot existed.
I’m not an expert on this, but I agree with Rockwell; my impression was that EA animal orgs try pretty hard to make sure their undercover investigations are done legally, so I don’t know if that’s a good comparison case. I’d be curious to hear the others that you reference.
As for why I think EA orgs shouldn’t beak minor laws: I think following the rules of society — even the inefficent ones — is a really good heuristic to avoid accidentally causing harm, incurring unexpected penalties, or damaging your reputation. In the context of this article, an EA org admitting to knowingly breaking a low-income jurisdiction’s laws on driver licenses because the fines are correspondingly low makes it seem like they don’t care about the spirit of the law (which is to protect Puerto Ricans on the road) or the general principle that it’s good to follow the rules of the society in which you are a visitor.
It’s kind of a caricature of the meme that wealthy people are above the law because they can just pay the fines. I don’t think playing into that is a great way to build a reputatiuon as an altruist.