Argument: In other words, these laws turn journalists and the investigators of crimes into criminals.
Rebuttal: This was written based off emotions and not facts. Ag gag laws were created to protect the privacy of farms and their animals and businesses. They were not created to turn journalists and investigators of crimes into criminals.
Argument: If recordings are allowed, individuals are forced to submit footage to authorities in an unrealistically short turnaround time, making it impossible to document patterns of abuse.
Rebuttal: The law that requires short turnaround time for video submission is reasonable because it reduces the chances of tampering or editing.
Argument: Every one of the more than 500 dairy farm families in Idaho practices compassionate animal husbandry and does not condone any sort of abuse towards their animals.
Rebuttal: If every family showed compassion and treated their animals fairly then reports of abuse wouldn’t have been made and evidence wouldn’t have been released. The employees were abusing the animals not the owners, therefore this argument has insufficient evidence.
Argument: And, these organizations strategically release these videos to wreak havoc on the agriculture industry, which usually results in litigation, loss of jobs and a direct shot at the markets.
Rebuttal: False evidence. The organizations are not trying to purposefully create job loss, and if job loss is the result then it’s earned. The organizations are trying to create justice for the animals, what’s stated in the argument is not their goal.