It is now illegal in Kentucky to expose the illegal treatment or processing of animals.
When exposing crime is punished, you are governed by criminals.
To clear up some confusion, the red legislature passed this Ag-Gag law, the governor vetoed it, then the legislature overturned the veto, with a few dissenting votes - but not enough to stop the overturn. So the Ag-Gag law is now adopted.
@shekinahcancook Someone in my family works with a dog rescue and they are constantly rescuing abused dogs from Kentucky and the dogs are in unspeakable condition. They exposed a “shelter” that was using donations for personal stuff for the manager. Then the shelter “closed” but opened back up with the same people. Local government didn’t care.
When people ask my family member why and they say “they need to elect better people”, a lot of them look confused.
Kentucky has outlawed videotaping commercial animal feed operations without the consent of the business. It’s obviously unconstitutional but it’ll remain the law until someone pays to litigate it.
The governor vetoed it, and Thomas voted to sustain the veto. But it was overturned anyway. The bill did not have anything to do with protecting animals.
@shekinahcancook@juandesant
After a quick internet search, I see that the legislature overturned the governor's veto of this bill, so it will become law in Kentucky. That's clearly a bad outcome that protects CAFO operators, not animals. :frown:
I think this is part of the larger republican goal to throw off federal regulations and criminalize protests of any kind. We are well on the downhill slope to corporate rule.
@shekinahcancook sorry, does not the text rather indicate that the measure was vetoed in order to protect the animals? Not sure how it can be interpreted otherwise…
Also, I don't see how you get "protecting" animals out of any of that. Are you some kind of factory farming shill? It absolutely does not say that, even this blurb.
The governor vetoed the bill to stop the right wing nutjob legislation from criminalizing whistleblowers. The nutjobs in question then overrode the veto.
@shekinahcancook sorry, I did not have the link to the bill, just the snippet in the image.
When I read “This bill made unauthorized recording at agricultural facilities a misdemeanor, with the intent to protect conduct from surveillance that could expose unethical practices. I [Reginald Thomas] voted to sustain the Governor's veto”, I read it as both the governor and Thomas being against the law to avoid animal suffering… and thought that that would end it. It is clear I was wrong.
I doubt it's just Kentucky. Most red states hate regulations and don't care about the animals conditions or the health of the people who eat the meat from sick and injured animals. I seriously advise to try and avoid buying it.
@shekinahcancook it also says that the reason for vetoing it is “I [Reginald Thomas] voted to sustain the Governor's veto because the law could reduce transparency and limit the public's right to know about potential abuses within the agricultural sector”, I think that is completely true.
It is just the additional context that the bill passed in spite of the veto was missing, and that was what my question was about.
Add comment