Carrie Underwood VS Tennessee Law Makers

[ucjrdude902]

Posted: 4/25/13 at 2:40pm

Has anyone heard about this? What exactly is the bill about?

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 4/25/13 at 2:45pm

It's the Ag-Gag bill. It requires anyone with undercover video of a farm to submit it within 48 hours or face prosecution. In other words, anyone compiling evidence of animal cruelty, food safety, illegal labor, etc., that has video over 48 hours old can be prosecuted.

[ucjrdude902]

Posted: 4/25/13 at 2:51pm

So she is for the bill or against it? Everything I read doesn't really clarify.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 4/25/13 at 2:53pm

If she were for it, she wouldn't be vs. the lawmakers.

[ucjrdude902]

Posted: 4/25/13 at 2:54pm

I'm just confused what her issue is? 48 hours is to long of a window? She wants punishments to be harsher? What?

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 4/25/13 at 3:01pm

Are you serious? Did my post not make sense? She's AGAINST the bill, thus the vs. between her and said lawmakers. There should be no prosecution for owning undercover footage for longer than 24 hours. It would be difficult to build a case in such a short period of time. She's mostly concerned about animal rights, but there are other issues at play, too.

[ucjrdude902]

Posted: 4/25/13 at 3:37pm

Maybe I'm just confused with the wording. Her issue is that 48 hours is to long? Just seems weird that an animal rights activist has an issue with a bill that protects animals.

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 4/25/13 at 4:11pm

I remember Carrie's folks said on 'Idol' that she loves animals just as much as she loves people or something like that. It's no surprise since she grew up on a farm.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 4/25/13 at 4:13pm

I think there's a video of Carrie slaughtering an animal that she's trying to suppress.

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 4/25/13 at 4:26pm

Good Lord. No. Her issue is with ANY time limits.

[Jungle Red]

Posted: 4/25/13 at 7:17pm

In theory, if the guilty (until proven innocent) party finds out about the tape, they can do a lot in 48 hours. You would think someone with proof would go immediately to the police.

[John Adams]

Posted: 4/25/13 at 7:32pm

Look at the first two articles in the link below.

Ag-Gag laws can actually protect abusers because (per the law) ALL video evidence (sufficient enough to make a solid case against the abusers) would have to be gathered within a 48-hour period. If the person(s) gathering video evidence take more than 48 hours, THEY will be prosecuted - not the abusers.

This kind of law discourages people from whistle-blowing.

Let Me Google That For You Updated On: 4/25/13 at 07:32 PM

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 4/25/13 at 7:50pm

There is not a LOT one can do in 48 hours and a lot of the time, there could be a small bit of evidence within 24 hours of footage. It has to be viewed and possibly edited. Many of these whistle blowing documentaries and such didn't gain any footing until there was a LOT of evidence that could be put together in documentary form and reach a larger audience. If an average joe took a video from a puppy mill to local police, little would be done. If they could prove that it happened over time and wasn't a one time fluke, more attention would be paid. With this law, they would also no longer legally be in possession of the videos after try turned copies over. They are supposed to give them to authorities and be done with it. It's a law that protects those that abuse and those who are paid off.