Publication name: Star Tribune
URL for more info: http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/119516799.html
It would become illegal in Minnesota to produce or distribute information about animal mistreatment or agricultural pollution under a bill introduced this week at the Legislature.
Animal rights advocates say the bill -- which resembles measures being pushed by legislators in other states, including Iowa -- amounts to an unconstitutional infringement on free speech that would have a chilling effect on whistle-blowers trying to bring attention to cases of animal cruelty.
Check out Minnesota Voters for Animal Protection website.
Taken from website:
April 7, 2011- Two bills have been introduced in the Minnesota Legislature that would make it a crime to videotape and to show footage shot inside puppy and kitten mills and factory farms.
Senate File 1118 and House File 1369 would criminalize blowing the whistle on animal cruelty, food safety problems, or labor abuses inside puppy and kitten mills or factory farms by making it a crime to take video inside such facilities, or even for the news media to possess or distribute these images. Read the bills here.
Please take action to oppose these bills today.
Excerpt from bill:
/> Sec. 3. [17.992] ANIMAL FACILITY INTERFERENCE.
4.28 Subdivision 1. Prohibited acts. A person who acts without the consent of the
4.29 owner of an animal facility to willfully do any of the following is guilty of animal facility
4.31 (1) produce a record which reproduces an image or sound occurring at the animal
4.32 facility if:
4.33 (i) the record is created by the person while at the animal facility; and
4.34 (ii) the record is a reproduction of a visual or audio experience occurring at the
4.35 animal facility, including but not limited to a photographic or audio medium;
5.1 (2) possess or distribute a record which produces an image or sound occurring at the
5.2 animal facility which was produced as provided in clause (1);
5.3 (3) exercise control over the animal facility including an animal maintained at the
5.4 animal facility or other property kept at the animal facility, with intent to deprive the
5.5 animal facility of the animal or property; and
5.6 (4) enter onto the animal facility, or remain at the animal facility, if the person has
5.7 notice that the facility is not open to the public. A person has notice that an animal facility
5.8 is not open to the public if the person is provided notice before entering onto the facility,
5.9 or the person refuses to immediately leave the facility after being instructed to leave. The
5.10 notice may be in the form of a written or verbal communication by the owner, a fence
5.11 or other enclosure designed to exclude intruders or contain animals, or a sign posted
5.12 that is reasonably likely to come to the attention of an intruder and which indicates that
5.13 entry is forbidden.
5.14 Subd. 2. Penalty. A person who commits animal facility interference is guilty
5.15 of a gross misdemeanor.
5.16 For a second or subsequent conviction of animal facility interference, the person is
5.17 guilty of a felony.
5.18 Subd. 3. Restitution. A person convicted of animal facility interference is subject
5.19 to an order of restitution.
5.20 Sec. 4. [17.993] ANIMAL FACILITY FRAUD.
5.21 Subdivision 1. Prohibition. A person who willfully does any of the following
5.22 is guilty of animal facility fraud:
5.23 (1) obtains access to an animal facility by false pretenses for the purpose of
5.24 committing an act not authorized by the owner of the animal facility; or
5.25 (2) makes a false statement or representation as part of an application to be employed
5.26 at the animal facility, if the person knows it to be false.
5.27 Subd. 2. Penalty. (a) A person who commits animal facility fraud is guilty of a
5.28 gross misdemeanor.
5.29 (b) For a second or subsequent conviction of animal facility fraud, the person is
5.30 guilty of a felony.
5.31 Subd. 3. Restitution. A person convicted of animal facility fraud is subject to an
5.32 order of restitution.