The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held a special session Thursday to hear arguments on the constitutionality of an “Ag Gag” law in Arkansas. The ensuing decision applies to the states within the Eighth Circuit, which includes South Dakota. Animal rights activists say the Arkansas law chills First-Amendment protected speech of whistle-blowers and journalists who expose animal cruelty in agricultural operations.
The Arkansas “ag gag” statute was supported by state Senator DeAnn Vaught. The law allows business owners to sue anyone who captures photos, video, or audio from non-public areas of the business that results in harm to the owner.
DeAnn Vaught is also a pig farmer. She and her husband, Jonathan Vaught, own Prayer Creek Farm. The Vaughts, among others, are listed as defendants in this appeal.
The plaintiffs include the Animal Legal Defense Fund, represented at oral arguments by David Muraskin. He says the Arkansas government has essentially passed a law that the state cannot enforce. Instead, that task goes to private business owners.
But Muraskin says the very existence of the statute chills free speech by threatening repercussions.
Muraskin tells appellate judges his clients have challenged ag gag laws across the country and want to investigate DeAnn Vaught’s farm specifically because she sponsored this law.
“Part of their political speech is revealing how they’ve been used to suppress important information, so going into DeAnn Vaught’s farm, whatever they find there, is important for plaintiffs’ political advocacy.
Several news organizations have lent support to the suit. They say this law stifles investigative journalists by cutting them off from sources of information.
Roger Rowe, attorney for the Vaughts, says plaintiffs do not have standing to sue his clients.
“We have Jon and DeAnn being sued for an injunction against bringing a claim that they don’t have against persons over whom they reasonably are never going to have a claim.”
But plaintiffs say the ag gag statute protects Prayer Creek Farm ahead of any investigation, so the Vaughts don’t have to launch a civil suit for damages if there are no investigation results to be made public.
The Eighth Circuit three-judge panel will deliberate and issue an opinion at a later date.