Federal Judge Strikes Down Idaho ‘Ag-Gag Law’

Re:Federal Judge Strikes Down Idaho ‘Ag-Gag Law’ by x0054 on Tuesday August 04, 2015 @04:06PM (#10005919)

That's not true, you can NEVER sign away your first amendment right. Your first amendment right protects you against government, not private action. If you violate an NDA, your employer has the right to fire you and to sue you for damages, but the government will NOT have the right to jail you. Though, in some circumstances people have been jailed for violating court order to not disclose information, but they are jailed for contempt of court, NOT the disclosure it self.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Federal Judge Strikes Down Idaho ‘Ag-Gag Law’ by Natsu on Tuesday August 04, 2015 @05:19PM (#10006356)

> Though, in some circumstances people have been jailed for violating court order to not disclose information, but they are jailed for contempt of court, NOT the disclosure it self.

So, if I understand this properly, you're saying that the government can't make you sign away your first amendment rights, but they can order you not to speak ('disclose information') and then jail you?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Federal Judge Strikes Down Idaho ‘Ag-Gag Law’ by CamperBob2 on Tuesday August 04, 2015 @04:32PM (#10006093)

Join the military, then see how far your First Amendment rights extend.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Federal Judge Strikes Down Idaho ‘Ag-Gag Law’ by AnimalMuppet on Tuesday August 04, 2015 @05:01PM (#10006262)

But (if I understand correctly) in the military, you aren't subject to civilian law. You're subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and civilian law does not apply to you.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Federal Judge Strikes Down Idaho ‘Ag-Gag Law’ by CamperBob2 on Tuesday August 04, 2015 @05:38PM (#10006450)

(Shrug) The assertion was that there is no way for a citizen to sign away their First Amendment rights. The UCMJ is a valid counterexample.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Federal Judge Strikes Down Idaho ‘Ag-Gag Law’ by x0054 on Tuesday August 04, 2015 @07:00PM (#10006866)

That's not exactly true, your freedom of speech rights are limited by UCMJ, especially under Articles 82, 88, and 134, but not eliminated. You still have a right to attend peaceful demonstrations and such. It is, however, shameful how we treat military men and women in this country. As far as I am concerned, they should have just as many rights as any one else.

Also, it's not really a counterexample, because you do not sign away your rights when you sign the enlistment papers, you loose some of your rights by simply being part of the military. People who where drafted back in the 60s also lost had their rights limited, even though they did not voluntarily sign any papers or agreed to anything.

Further, this is an act of the government, and not a civil contract. No CIVIL CONTRACT can take away ANY of your constitutional rights.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Federal Judge Strikes Down Idaho ‘Ag-Gag Law’ by Natsu on Tuesday August 04, 2015 @07:51PM (#10007156)

It's not that you lose them outright, but they can be deliberately waived in certain contexts. Here's an example:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/judge-nursing-student-wa...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Federal Judge Strikes Down Idaho ‘Ag-Gag Law’ by dragonwriter on Tuesday August 04, 2015 @07:39PM (#10007086)

> But (if I understand correctly) in the military, you aren't subject to civilian law. You're subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and civilian law does not apply to you.

Civilian law generally applies to active duty military personnel the same as to anyone else (though some laws have express exceptions or alternate provisions for military personnel), and the UCMJ even provides for the delivery of military personnel accused of violations of law by the civil authorities to be delivered to those authorities. [UCMJ Art. 14, 10 U.S.C. Sec. 814]

More to the point upthread, members of the military retain First Amendment rights, and military regulations have been struck down for violating the First Amendment.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Federal Judge Strikes Down Idaho ‘Ag-Gag Law’ by neurotech1 on Tuesday August 04, 2015 @07:10PM (#10006914)

There has been a few cases of military "whistleblowers" contacting their Congressional representative. Trying to restrict such contact I'm almost certain is a violation of the UCMJ. Contacting the Army/Navy/AF/DoD-OIG is another method of contact that is protected by Federal law.

Its not unheard of for senior officers' careers to be ended after a negative OIG report.

[ Parent | on HN ]