Ag-gag laws – which side has the better claim?

The State of Utah passed an Act in 2012 making it a misdemeanor to record an agricultural operation without permission.  Simple enough, but a couple of animal rights groups objected and filed a suit to have the law overturned. Utah based its defense of the law on four points identified in the judge’s ruling, “[I]n its briefing, the State confined the court’s analysis to four discrete government interests it contends support the Act, arguing: (1) The Act protects animals from diseases brought into the facility by workers; (2) It protects animals from injury resulting from unqualified or inattentive workers; (3) It protects workers from exposure to zoonotic diseases; and (4) It protects workers from injury resulting from unqualified or inattentive workers.”  These were the four parts of my expert report for the Office of the Utah Attorney General.The judge seemed to agree that the content of my report didn’t target any particular group of people or any particular intentions.  But, the judge expressed his skepticism of the government of Utah when he wrote, “[I]t is not clear that these were the actual reasons motivating the Act.”  And, “What the Act appears perfectly tailored toward is preventing undercover investigators from exposing abuses at agricultural facilities.” The motivation for the Act seems to have been more important to the judge than its merit.  He ruled the Act is unconstitutional, favoring speech rights over property rights. Despite the judge’s ruling, this case could take a nasty turn for animal rights groups.  The State of Utah has a habit of appealing a ruling by a single judge that overturns a law passed by the democratically elected legislature and signed by the governor.  The next judges could be inclined to give greater weight to the advantages of the law.  The animal rights groups might find themselves facing a bear when they expected another raccoon.