Matanza silenciosa: Cómo las restricciones en la libertad de opinión y de expresión mantienen escondidos los abusos a animales y reprimen el activismo por el bienestar animal en Europa y Estados Unidos.
Resumen
Miles de millones de animales en todo el mundo se utilizan anualmente para el consumo humano. La industria agrícola goza de un alto nivel de protección estatal debido a su papel en el suministro de alimentos a la población y, a su vez, a la seguridad de la nación. En Europa y los Estados Unidos, los activistas hacen desafíos similares a las prácticas de la industria animal del status quo: usan cámaras de vídeo para exponer los abusos a los animales y compartir sus hallazgos con el público. Varios estados de EE.UU. con importantes industrias agrícolas y ganaderas han aprobado leyes "ag-gag" destinadas a prohibir muchas de estas actividades, incluida la filmación de instalaciones y la entrada a mataderos con falsos pretextos. Al encontrar que estas leyes restringen la libertad de expresión y obstaculizan los esfuerzos para reunir pruebas que permitan denunciar, los activistas han cuestionado estas leyes en los tribunales de los distritos federales de los Estados Unidos. Este documento examina tres de estas demandas, incluidas dos en las que los activistas ganaron bastante "fácilmente" bajo la favorable jurisprudencia de la libertad de expresión de los EE.UU. A continuación, comparo estos casos con tres casos de libertad de opinión y expresión presentados por animalistas en Europa. Utilizo esta comparación para argumentar que es improbable que incluso las leyes "ag-gag" bien redactadas y elaboradas estratégicamente resistan el escrutinio judicial en el futuro porque la jurisprudencia de la libertad de expresión de los EE.UU. existe como medida de protección contra cada uno de los propósitos de las leyes “ag-gag”: el silenciamiento del discurso dirigido por el gobierno a petición de un poderoso grupo industrial.
Palabras clave
Primera Enmienda, libertad de expresión, ag-gagCitas
ABRAMS, F., The Soul Of The First Amendment (Yale Univ. Press 2017)
Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, 109 P.L. 374, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 43 (2006)
Animal Def. Int’l, Eur. Ct. H.R. ¶ 102 citing Wingrove v. The United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H.R. ¶ 58 (Nov. 25, 1996)
Animal Def. Int’l v. The United Kingdom, No. 48876/08, Eur. Ct. H.R. ¶ 3 (Apr. 11, 2013)
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Herbert, 263 F. Supp.3d 1193, 1199 (D. Utah 2017)
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Otter, 118 F.Supp.3d 1195, 1200 (D. Idaho 2015)
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Wasden, 878 F.3d 1184, 1190 (9th Cir. 2018)
Animal Legal Defense Fund, Taking Ag-Gag to Court, http://aldf.org/cases-campaigns/features/taking-ag-gag-to-court [Accessed 26 Dec. 2017]
Animal Welfare Act of 1970, 91 P.L. 579 (1970)
Associated Press, Utah Won’t Appeal Undercover Farm Filming Decision, https://www.usnews.com/news/be st-states/utah/articles/2017-09-08/utah-wont-appeal-undercover-farm-filming-decision [Accessed 15 June 2018]
BERRY, C., Staff Attorney, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Guest Speaker at the University of Michigan’s Student Animal Legal Defense Fund Lunch Talk on Ag-Gag Law (Nov. 2, 2017)
Bundesverfassung der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft [Switzerland Federal Constitution]
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch [German Civil Code] § 823 (1)
CHEMERINSKY, E., Constitutional Law, Principles, And Policies (Wolters Kluwer 5th ed. 2015)
Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. & Di Stefano v. Italy, Eur. Ct. H.R. ¶ 129 (June 7, 2012)
COHEN, M. E., PORAT, I., American Balancing and German Proportionality: The Historical Origins, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 8/2 (2010) 272
Communications Act 2003 (U.K.)
Council Directive 1999/74, of July 19, 1999, Laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens, 1999 O.J. (L 203) (EC)
Council Directive 2008/119, of Dec. 18, 2008, Laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves, 2008 O.J. (L 10) (EC)
Council Directive 2008/120, of Dec. 18, 2008 Laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs, 2008 O.J. (L 47) (EC)
Council of Europe, https://www.coe.int/en/web/about-us/who-we-are [Accessed 12 Dec. 2017]
European Convention on Human Rights, Nov. 4, 1950 (entered into force Sept. 3, 1953)
DORSEN, N. et al., Comparative Constitutionalism: Cases and Materials (Thompson Reuters 2nd ed. 2010)
EPSTEIN, R. A., The Fundamentals of Freedom of Speech, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 10 (1987) 53
Food, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 § 2103 (1) Reporter 104 Stat. 3359
GENOWAYS, T., Close to the Bone: The Fight Over Transparency in the Meat Industry, New York Times Magazine, Oct. 5, 2016
Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 (U.S. 1925)
Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany]
HABER, T. I. & EMERSON, D., Political And Civil Rights In The United States: A Collection Of Legal And Related Materials (Dennis & Co., 2nd ed. 1952)
HALBERSTAM, D., Desperately Seeking Europe: On Comparative Methodology and the Conception of Rights, 5 International Journal of Constitutional Law, 5/1 (2007) 168
Humane Methods, 7 U.S.C. § 1902 (2017)
IDAHO CODE § 18-7042 (2017)
KAN ANN. STAT. § 47-1827 (2017)
McCLOSKEY R. G. (ed.), Essays in Constitutional Law (Knopf 1957)
MO. REV. STAT. § 578.182(1)(3) and FLA. STAT. § 828.125(5)
N.D. CENT. CODE §§ 12.1-21.1-01, 12.1-21.1-05 (2017)
N.C. GEN. STAT. § 99A-2 (2017)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (U.S. 1964)
New York Times Editorial Board, No More Exposés in North Carolina, The New York Times, Feb. 1, 2016.
Our Member States, https://www.coe.int/en/web/about-us/who-we-are [Accessed 21 May 2017]
PACELLE, W., The Long Road to Animal Welfare: How Activism Works in Practice, Foreign Affairs, (July/Aug. 2015) 71
PANNICK, D., Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 4 K.C.L.J. 44-45 (1993-94)
PARK, M., SINGER, P., The Globalization of Animal Welfare: More Food Does Not Require More Suffering, Foreign Affairs, Mar./Apr. (2012) 122
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Stein, 259 F. Supp.3d 369, 372 (M.D.N.C. 2017)
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Stein, 2018 WL 2714684, *1 (4th Cir. June 5, 2018)
PETA, 259 F. Supp.3d at 374
RANEY B. et al. eds., Jacobs, White & Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford Univ. Press 2017)
SAFRAN FOER, J., Eating Animals (New York 2009) 262
SAUL, M., The European Court of Human Rights Margin of Appreciation and the Process of National Parliaments, Human Rights Law Review, 15/4 (2015) 749
SINGER, P., Open the Cages!, The New York Review of Books (May 12, 2016), reviewing PACELLE, W., The Humane Economy: How Innovators And Enlightened Consumers Are Transforming The Lives Of Animals (2016), http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/05/12/humane-economy-open-the-cages/ [Accessed 12 Dec. 2017]
Strafgesetzbuch [German Criminal Code]
STUCKI, S., (Certified) Humane Violence? Animal Welfare Labels, the Ambivalence of Humanizing the Inhumane, and What International Humanitarian Law Has to Do with It, AJIL Unbound 111 (2017) 277 (https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2017.65)
STUPPLE, A. T., Terrorism and the Animal Rights And Environmental Movements, Journal of Animal and Natural Resource Law, 11 (2015) 51
The European Court of Human Rights, http://www.echr.coe.int/pages/home.aspx?p=basictexts [Accessed 12 Dec. 2017]
Tierbefreier E.V. v. Germany, No. 45192/09, Eur. Ct. H.R. ¶ 30 (Jan. 16, 2014)
TUSHNET, M., The Constitution Of The United States Of America: A Contextual Analysis (Oxford: Hart Publishing 2015) 187, noting the very first amendments to the U.S. Constitution were explicitly “described as a Bill of Rights”
U.S. CONST. amend. I.
UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 76-6-112 (2017)
VAN DIJK, R., et al. eds., Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights (Intersentia: Antwerpen – Oxford 4th ed. 2006)
Verein Gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland, No. 32772/02, Eur. Ct. H.R. (June 30, 2009)
Publicado
Descargas
Derechos de autor 2019 Mahalia Kahsay
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
