What They Don’t Want You To Know

A recent article in Salon noted that six states are considering legislation that would restrict the ability of people to record videos of animal rights abuses on farms. Such videos have damaged the reputations of factory farms, and been used in federal prosecutions. The farming industry claims that these so-called “ag-gag” bills are needed to keep farms secure and uphold privacy.

Setting aside the merits of these bills, which are quite dubious, there is a larger trend of institutions circling the wagons against what they perceive as unwarranted public intrusion. Some states, like Illinois, have tried to ban people from recording on-duty police officers. The Obama administration, despite pledges of transparency, has cracked down on leaks that many consider legitimate whistleblowing. Fewer companies are going public, partially to avoid the regulation and disclosure that is required of public companies. For many years, the military restricted the ability of the press to show the coffins of America soldiers.

In many respects, these efforts are a product of the modern media age. Smartphones have put a camera in everyone’s pocket. The web has allowed people to share videos and information easily and to a wide audience. In a global marketplace, institutions spend a great deal of time and money building a brand, and are understandably upset when that brand is tarnished.

There is an upside to these efforts: These laws demonstrate that technological tools have made citizens much more powerful. Why would companies and governments want to restrict what they can record and share, unless that information has real impact? The public outcry about “pink slime,” the processed beef product, led restaurants to change what they buy and nearly drove an industry out of business.

The democratization of information has downsides – mainly in the ease at which misinformation can spread. Josh Sanburn in Time makes a convincing case that the “pink slime” controversy tainted a safe and well-regulated food product. California voters defeated a proposition that would have required the labeling of genetically modified foods. Industry groups poured resources into an effort to defeat the measure. Given the hysteria over genetically modified foods, much of it unfounded, it’s hard to blame companies for fighting a bill that might hurt their reputation with consumers.

That being said, a greater availability of information, despite the downsides, should be considered a positive trend that deserves protection. It’s telling that the founders made freedom of speech and the press the first item in the Bill of Rights. Our capitalist economy is built around consumers making informed choices. I’ve argued in the past that the rise of powerful, global corporations means that public institutions, like the press and the government, must take an active role in ensuring accountability. For all those reasons, greater disclosure and access to information should always be the preference of judges and policymakers.