Iowa Goes Too Far with Farm Bill

March 18th, 2011 by Alicia Calzada and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Recently we told you about a bill banning photography of farms in Florida. We have learned that there is a similar bill, prohibiting photography (among other things) of farms and crops without the permission of the owner. The Iowa bill has been compared to the Florida bill, but a quick read of the bill shows that it is far worse. To Iowa’s credit, it appears that photography from the street wouldn’t be affected, however, mere possession and distribution of undercover photography of a farm would be a crime. This elevates editors and news organizations to the status of criminals if they publish, or even possess undercover footage of farms, crops or animal facilities.

Specifically the bill states that “distribution or possession” of photographs that were illegally obtained (through violations of earlier portions of the bill). Under the proposed law, “A person is guilty of animal facility interference if the person. . . [p]ossess or distribute a record which produces an image or sound occurring at the animal facility which” is  a “reproduction of a visual or audio experience occurring at the animal facility, including but not limited to a photographic or audio medium” without the consent of the owner.

To give some perspective to the blatant unconstitutionality of this bill consider this – the only time that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that bans distribution and possession of any kind of photography it was a law against possessing and distributing child pornography. As powerful of a lobby farmers are, elevating exposes of farms to the level of child pornography is absurd and I can’t see how this would hold up. Just last year the Supreme Court ruled that a law banning possession and distribution of video of cruelty to animals was unconstitutional. See U.S. v. Stevens, 130 S.Ct. 1577 (2010). The intent of that law was to prevent animal cruelty but even it went too far (the NPPA signed an amicus brief advocating for the overturning of that bill).

The government can’t even prevent the possession and distribution of documents that put U.S. security interests at risk so it is hard to imagine how the public relations interests of farms would be considered more compelling than U.S. security interests.

Several years ago (2001), in a case called Bartnicki v. Vopper, the Supreme Court ruled that when a news organization lawfully obtained a recording, they could not be held liable for the publication of the details of the recording, even though the recording itself was illegally obtained. The Iowa law would make a news organization liable for publishing a recording, even if the news organization had nothing to do with obtaining the recording.

The NPPA has contacted lawmakers in Iowa regarding the bill.

Journalists and Photographers in Iowa should be very concerned about this bill. While it would no doubt be struck down in court, it is much easier for all of us if it never makes it to the governor’s desk.

From HF589:

Sec. 9.1(a)(2) makes it a crime to “Possess or distribute a record which produces an image or sound occurring at the animal facility” which was taken without permission of the owner.

Sec. 14.1.b makes it a crime to “Possess or distribute a record which produces an image or sound occurring at the crop operation which was” taken without permission of the owner.

Posted in Access, First Amendment, law, Legal, multimedia, photographers, photojournalism, trespass | 13 Comments »

13 Responses to “Iowa Goes Too Far with Farm Bill”

  1.   SNP Says:

    Michael Vick went to prison for cruelty to dogs, journalists and photographers will go to prison for documenting the cruelty and the inhumane condition that goes on in animal farms! Makes total sense to me.

  2.   steve giarratana Says:

    Seems people have too much time on their hands.

    How would/could Google Earth continue to take satellite photos??


  3.   john mooney Says:

    The US Dept of Agriculture routinely takes aerial photography of farm lands throughout the country, for a variety of reasons. That photography ends up on various internet sites (including Google earth and maps). Does this mean that the mere access of a Google earth image of farm lands in Iowa would be a first degree felony?? Talk about brain dead lawmakers!!!

  4.   Concert Photos Magazine Says:

    If this passes I will be hard pressed to not go there and take photos of farms!

  5.   BOB2 Says:

    A Communist bill by Teabagging idiots?

  6.   Ryan Says:

    So is this the governments way of hiding what they are doing to the future of farms??

  7.   cliquez ici. Says:

    Thank you for the sensible critique. Me and my neighbor were just preparing to do a little research on this. We got a grab a book from our area library but I think I learned more from this post. I am very glad to see such wonderful information being shared freely out there.

  8.   Odis Swam Says:

    Hello.This article was really remarkable, especially because I was investigating for thoughts on this subject last Sunday.

  9.   Mai Hinderaker Says:

    I am lucky that I discovered this web web site, just the proper info that I was seeking for!

  10.   Wilma Vandemark Says:

    Thanks for sharing excellent informations. Your web-site is really cool. I’m impressed by the details which you have on this web internet site. It reveals how nicely you perceive this topic. Bookmarked this internet page, will come back for extra articles. You, my pal, ROCK! I identified simply the information I already searched all over the spot and merely couldn’t come across. What a perfect web-site.

  11.   Ronnie Biderman Says:

    I dugg some of you post as I thought they were very valuable handy

  12.   Earlie Cartagena Says:


  13.   Habibi Says:

    You got a very outstanding site, Glad I noticed it through yahoo.

Leave a Reply