A bill introduced by Florida state senator Jim Norman would make it a felony to take a photograph of a farm without the owner's permission: "A person who photographs, video records or otherwise produces images or pictorial records, digital or otherwise, at or of a farm or other property where legitimate agriculture operations are being conducted without the written consent of the owner, or an authorized representative of the owner, commits a felony of the first degree." (NYT Lens blog)

  • Anonymous

    This is obvious a case of the “farming industry” not wanting anymore exposes or documentaries about how awful farm conditions are for, people, animals, and the plants they grow.

  • Mitchmaster

    The author of the bill says that his intent is to prevent animal-rights activists from promoting socialism. That’s a little like wanting to prevent Martians from promoting expressionism.

    • grimc

      The way to prevent socialism on a farm is to give the pigs special privileges and they’ll keep the other animals in line.

      • Cori

        Ha! Very nice.

    • Cola

      Or the mistreatment of workers…

    • Hopeful_Greis

      How did you get an advanced look at next week’s Glenn Beck show?!?!?
      Glenn’s gonna blow the lid off the hush-up-the-Martian-art-invasion conspiracy. All Expressionists are known commies!

  • subhan

    Well, it’s already illegal to disparage someone’s produce or other perishable agricultural product in Florida. http://www.cspinet.org/foodspeak/laws/states/florida.htm

  • Anonymous

    It was so much fun at work a few more than several years ago at a farm bureau meeting. Some members were smug about not letting government workers on their property to do surveys. They thought they could hide their their bulldozer work. On the other side of the table the scientists were smug because we knew that high resolution aerial imagery was being served up for free by Google. It got better when a middle aged farmer had to point out that we “the government” could find all the earthwork and illegal ponds from our desks, and the farmers could do the same from their homes.

    The rest of the meeting was really productive once we could get back to negotiating the substance of what we wanted to accomplish rather than having to debate unfounded fears of losing privacy and losing private property rights.

    Sounds like the farmers want that negotiating trump card back. Think national security. Farmers feed America.

  • simonbarsinister

    This is part of big food’s next move to extend and embrace the terms “organic”, “healthy”, “natural”, “free range”, etc.

    They can’t have people actually taking pictures of their factory-farms if they want to market them as free-range organic, now can they?

    I wonder how much Jim Norman got paid for this bill?
    I’d love to see a chart of just what laws you can buy for how much money. Is there somewhere where I can see which donations and gifts purchased which laws?

  • boingboingdave

    from what I’m reading, it seems this is an attempt to go after people getting jobs on farms and then taking undercover pictures exposing illegal practices. Simpson Farms in Norman’s district wants this law to protect farms’ IP…. except I’m at a loss for what a farmer could be doing or using that is their own exclusive intellectual property.

    • travtastic

      What do you know about farming? Billy Bob Asshole has just patented a new method whereby he can squeeze over 9,000 debeaked chickens into a space the size of a dorm refrigerator. Doesn’t he deserved to be compensated for his innovation?

  • redsquares

    “otherwise produces images or pictorial records, digital or otherwise”

    At what point does a drawing of a farm become close enough to be identified as a specific farm?

    Wait: ‘pictorial records’… ‘otherwise (non-digital)’? Like, meat-memory?

  • zombieprocess

    But it does mention “where legitimate agriculture operations are being conducted”. Illegitimate operations are not covered. :)

    That being said, this is starting to heading down the path where soon photography will be associated with terrorism a la’ Britain.

    • Brainspore

      But it does mention “where legitimate agriculture operations are being conducted”. Illegitimate operations are not covered.

      The key is to make sure that some part of your farming operation is legitimate. As long as you make a portion of your income from legal farming practices like hormone-injected debeaked poultry, you can focus the rest of your farm’s operations on growing marijuana while no longer having to fear government photo surveillance!

  • Anonymous

    Well this would be bad if it ever made it to my neck of the woods in PA. I literally cant take a picture without a farm ending up in it.

  • Anonymous

    Did he work for Monsanto? It would explain a lot.

  • flink

    Does anyone else need more examples of why politicians should be set free to swim home from mid-atlantic?

  • adrianna.jackson

    Just further, proof that Republicans and Politicians in general, are insane! Why do you do you for them? Maybe cheap forms of entertainment, like watching Charley Sheen have a mental meltdown in the net? Just think of all the millions of tourist that will be breaking the law by taking a photograph of an orange field! Also, think of all the millions of dollars taxpayer’s money that will be spent in legal/court fees if anyone is fined for it! Considering it’s a Republican, maybe that is the sinister point.

  • Nadreck

    Doubtless it’s All for the Children! The Children Of The Corn anyway.

  • Anonymous

    Moderator note: The following comment has been passed for entertainment purposes only.

    It is actually radical leftwing eco freaks who harass people and family farms , while they fight for animal cruelty, they are the first to scream for free legal abortions aid with tax player dollars. We cant have radical wackos dictating how we farm or raise animals. I can see people needncauses and a feelingnof belonging to something but how about getting a job and working hard without taking advantage of the boss or business or stealing time. For every hour of pay you should work hard for all 60 minutes. You can take pictures of the farm if you get the owners permission.

    Our society is a society of critics and debase all meaning becuase people have taken everything for granted. You are born, live life, then die. But people waste time complaining about their drive thru order being mixed up. When you are dealing with life and death issues, the mixed up order or pickles on the burger just dont mean that much. Shut up and quit complaining about everything

    Death is upon you one day close.

    • Jake0748

      ah so… did you finally come up with the universal sarcasm tag?

  • Anonymous

    iowa is doing it too. http://vegan.com/blog/2011/03/02/iowa-seeks-to-criminalize-undercover-cruelty-investigations/

    so as they let corporate criminals get off rick scott free, they criminalize the whistleblowers in republican america. WE THE PEOPLE!!!!1!!

  • Anonymous

    Perhaps they don’t want people documenting the practice of big agribusinesses illegally hiring “migrant” workers.

  • Ludo

    “…at or of a farm or other property where legitimate agriculture operations are being conducted without the written consent of the owner, or an authorized representative of the owner…”

    Taking photos at or of farms or other property where legitimate agriculture operations *aren’t* being conducted without the written consent of the owner would still be legal.

  • sam1148

    Well I guess that does it for the Citrus Tower. http://www.citrustower.com/
    A tourist attraction tower with observation deck overlooking orange groves and farm land.
    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5pw-UhfU748/S004-EuJ_-I/AAAAAAAAHVQ/t356Uq5UVMI/s320/Clermont+(6).jpg

    • Anonymous

      Haven’t been there in a while, have you.
      First time I saw it, there were citrus trees all round.
      Now, not so much. I’d like to say they’ve seen an improvement
      in the area, but it appears it went straight from rural farmland to high density apartments. Check it out, the Tower now stands guard over one of many apartment complexes.
      Google maps will show you a four year old overhead view.

    • Anonymous

      The views from Citrus Tower today only include road construction and rows of houses that all look alike.

  • angusm

    Thank God.

    I’ll sleep sounder tonight, knowing that we’re protected from evil farm photographers. Because every farm that is photographed signifies, in the final sense, a … oh, never mind.

  • Anonymous

    It’s ironic that softcore pornography is protected by the first amendment, but photos of farms are a first degree felony.

  • Anonymous

    I wonder what the DEA will think of this. Will make it a lot harder to do aerial searches for things they don’t like.

  • Mister44

    What about Bob Ross-esque oil paintings of the farm?

  • Anonymous

    Let’s make it a law to put cameras in all work spaces and animal feeding/resting/living areas, broadcast to all over the internet. We can take it a little further and have the broadcasts displayed in the supermarket meat section so that you can see EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE BUYING. Or the produce section so that you can see who picked the fruit you eat. Each worker can have a little CGI bubble inserted above their heads showing how many pennies he or she earned that day. Forced labor can have a zero. Americans are “Brave New World,” when it comes to agribusiness when we should be all “1984″ instead.

  • elix

    So if I’ve got a medicinal marijuana grow-op for a legitimate dispensary, does that mean the cops can’t take photographs for evidence for (mis-aimed) drug charges without my consent?

    (</snark> I live in Canada, anyway, and, no, I do not grow pot.)

  • AirPillo

    Probably more about livestock farms than the fields you usually think of as farms.

    If you ask Tyson for permission to see inside one of their licensed chicken farms they will tell you in the unkindest words possible to go away and never ask again.

    If you ask one of the farmers under contract for them who doesn’t mind you taking pictures, they will tell you “I’d love to let you, but Tyson would terminate my contract and I’d go bankrupt and lose everything”.

    The meat industry is fiercely protective of the secrecy of their closed doors. Some of this is animal rights reactionism, but honestly a lot of it is just that it’s disgusting in there and photography encourages people to raise damning questions about food safety.

    With the FDA effectively being their powerless bitch, they don’t want anything getting out which could provide the public motivation to demand we tighten regulations on their operations.

    tl;dr- the meat industry has secrets they’d like to keep.

  • Underpants Gnome

    I think any time something new is criminalized, there should be a requirement for the bill to also provide a source of new funding for the arrest, trial, incarceration, parole, execution, and rehabilitation of the now-criminals.

    It would make these guys think twice about tossing out felonies like candy if the bill for the jail comes out of their budget.

  • CANTFIGHTTHEDITE

    For some reason, anti-photography legislation pieces always remind of this Loonie Toons short.

    • Phikus

      Could that reason be because it’s apt? (Indeed, such a bill is loony tunes.) Good thing the senator has a sense of perspective, to put photography on par with arson, murder, and rape.

  • arbitraryaardvark

    90% of introduced bills do not pass. they are written as a favor to some constituent or contributor, but die in committee.
    odds are this is one of those. if it passed, or a bill like it, a person with standing could file for a declaratory judgment and injunction based on the state and federal constitutions, and possibly collect a bag of legal fees. the legislature has people who advise them about this, so most such bills are killed. that’s besides the oaths these guys take to uphold the constitutions, which in practice most of them ignore.

  • Jake0748

    Christ, what an asshole.

  • krylon

    Florida has a pretty large tax loophole for agriculture. There was a time when developers simply bought agricultural land and put the least amount of agriculture on it possible to get the exemption. Then they’d just sit on it and wait for the value to rise. Maybe this is aimed at curbing speculation? Rah rah nonexistent independent farmer?

  • Anonymous

    So I guess that spam I keep getting about how someone is going to be photographing my property aerially, do I want to buy a copy at $ridiculous, will now be felonious.

    • farcedude

      What altitude are they willing to enforce to? I mean, they’re obviously intending this for ground-level photography (to prevent ‘cruel’ animal practices from being publicized), but is aerial photography covered? How about satellite? I’d love to see them go after Google/Digital Earth on that one.

  • Anonymous

    Farming genetically modified weeds, that might wreck god knows what kind of havoc on our ecosystem isn’t a crime, but photographing said weeds is? So we can’t photograph the food that lands on our plate? I want to be able to photograph the stuff that I’m supposed to eat. This law clearly prevents the documenting of possibly illegal activities that might take place at said farms…

  • Karnuvap

    In many years from now you will be able to poke fun at this law by saying, “Did you know that it is actually illegal to take a picture of a farm in Florida?” in the same way that we currently do with laws such as “Did you know that it is illegal to enter a bar in Wisconsin unless you are carrying a sidearm.”
    Oh! how we will laugh!

  • Cowicide

    Let’s see, yet another Republican fightin’ big gub’mint, big brother gub’mint intrusions on our…

    oh, wait…..

  • Anonymous

    What is this I don’t even…

  • Anonymous

    Something must have happened to prompt him making this law. So the real question is “Who photographed something at his farm that he wished they didn’t ?”

  • lasttide

    Is there some justification that farms need protection from the evils of photography? Perhaps the theft of vast numbers of corn souls?

  • boingboingdave
  • Lidok

    Google is screwed.
    Honestly don’t see the reason for this law.
    It was so much simpler in the days of the founding fathers: unless you are harming others or their property, it’s not a crime. Why can’t we go back to those laws?

    • Donald Petersen

      It was so much simpler in the days of the founding fathers: unless you are harming others or their property, it’s not a crime. Why can’t we go back to those laws?

      Revisionist! No-one was allowed to photograph privately-owned farms in the 18th century either!

    • Mister44

      re: “It was so much simpler in the days of the founding fathers: unless you are harming others or their property, it’s not a crime. Why can’t we go back to those laws?”

      YES! THANK YOU!

      No more of having to put up with women or poor people voting either.

    • Brainspore

      It was so much simpler in the days of the founding fathers: unless you are harming others or their property, it’s not a crime.

      Back in those days it wasn’t uncommon for the people you were harming to BE your property.

    • Anonymous

      Lidok, do you mean laws like the Alien and Sedition Acts? [It's so much fun to poke holes in Libertarian's arguments; they'll universally ignorant of history.]

    • JonStewartMill

      The most likely reason is that Florida agribusinesses would rather not have animal-rights activists photographing their mistreatment of animals.

  • Anonymous

    Well, if the photos got out it would be pretty bad for the big farming industries. Somehow I have a feeling it wasn’t the mom and pop local farms who pushed this.

  • evilpyrate

    Looks like another case of Republicans writing a useless law in search of a nonexistent crime.

    • SB-129

      “Looks like another case of Republicans writing a useless law in search of a nonexistent crime.”

      or maybe republicans writing a very useful law that would protect them from a crime they have recently comitted or are about to comitt.

  • Anonymous

    “legitimate agriculture operations are being conducted” by legitimate businessmen, who even belong to a club specifically for legitimate business men:

    http://www.hwdyk.com/q/images/bartthemurderer_05.jpg

  • Anonymous

    It’s not as absurd as you think.

    What makes plants grow?

    Sunlight.

    What’s sunlight made out of?

    Photons.

    What’s happening when you take a picture?

    Photons bouncing off the farm are hitting your camera lens and being converted into electricity.

    YOU’RE STEALING THE PHOTONS THEY NEED TO GROW YOUR FOOD!

    …

    Wait, maybe it IS as absurd as you think.

  • Salviati

    This appears to be clearly unconstitutional unless the farm is identified as vital to national security by an Executive power (not the state legislature).

    As a photographer and a concerned citizen, I would love to see this law challenged. And as a Floridian, I would have jurisdiction to challenge such a law. But I cannot risk an arrest or felony conviction (for work-reasons). Is there a process for challenging a law without being a defendant?

  • Anonymous

    Many factory farms do not want their horrid practices shown to the general public.

  • Anonymous

    Prima facie this appears to be a big food industry attempt at stiff arming people who might make documentaries like Food Inc. I seem to recall a segment in that documentary discussing that such laws being proposed.

  • SuperPhotog

    This is an undefendable law. As a photographer I know that you have the right to photograph anything as long as you do not trespass and are photographing from public property. This will be fought and overturned if it ever becomes law just another waste of Tax payers money.