PETA sues Kan. over state fair restrictions
WICHITA, Kan. — People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is suing to block the Kansas State Fair from forcing the group to shield fairgoers who pass by its booth from images depicting animal slaughter, saying the fair’s action violates the group’s free-speech rights.
PETA filed a federal lawsuit Aug. 27 that names the Kansas Fair Board, the state and the fair’s general manager, Denny Stoecklein, as defendants. The group also filed a motion yesterday asking the court to block the restrictions imposed on PETA’s booth for this year’s fair, which starts Sept. 7.
U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten has scheduled a hearing for Sept. 4 in the case.
The American Civil Liberties Union is representing PETA for free along with Kansas City, Mo., law firm Copilevitz & Canter.
PETA has screened a graphic new documentary, “Glass Walls,” at state fairs in Colorado and Iowa. It shows animals being slaughtered and instances of animal abuse at factory farms.
Kansas fair organizers say the restrictions will still allow PETA to show graphic images, but fairgoers will have to consciously choose to view them and to look behind partitions shielding the images from the general public.
“I’ve never seen anything like this — this is a classic content-based restriction on what the speaker can say, which I think is unconstitutional,” said Doug Bonney, legal director for the ACLU Foundation of Kansas and Western Missouri.
Stoecklein referred any comments on the lawsuit to the Kansas attorney general’s office.
Jeff Wagaman, deputy chief of staff for the state attorney general’s office, said in a statement that the state is confident the fair board’s actions are legal.
“The Attorney General’s Office will zealously defend the State Fair Board in this matter,” Wagaman said.
PETA attorney Jeff Kerr said the group tried to get fair officials to voluntarily remove the restrictions, but PETA didn’t get responses to its letters and was left with no other option than to sue.
The film, narrated by music legend and longtime PETA supporter Paul McCartney, depicts the brutal treatment of animals at slaughterhouses and family farms. It has been shown at the Colorado and Iowa state fairs and other places, Kerr said.
“We are always going to aggressively defend our rights to speak up for animals who have no voice,” Kerr said. “So whether it is this fair, or anywhere else, we are going to fight for the right to show our video and expose the cruelty of the meat industry. Most governments have been introduced to the First Amendment and wouldn’t engage in this kind of conduct, and we are hopeful that the Kansas State Fair will see the error of its ways.”
Also see: PETA, Iowa fair work through dispute over profanity in video
Tags: animal cruelty, censorship, content-based, film, Kansas
2 Responses to “PETA sues Kan. over state fair restrictions”
The First Amendment Center is an educational organization and cannot provide legal advice.
Ken Paulson is president and chief executive officer of the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University and in Washington, D.C. Previously, Paulson served as the editor and senior vice president/news of USA Today.
Gene Policinski, senior vice president and executive director of the First Amendment Center and president and chief operating officer of the Diversity Institute, is a veteran journalist whose career has included work in newspapers, radio, television and online.
John Seigenthaler founded the First Amendment Center in 1991 with the mission of creating national discussion, dialogue and debate about First Amendment rights and values.
Dr. Charles C. Haynes is director of the Religious Freedom Education Project at the Newseum. He writes and speaks extensively on religious liberty and religion in American public life.
David L. Hudson Jr. is an expert in First Amendment issues who writes for firstamendmentcenter.org and for other publications. Hudson teaches law and was a scholar at the First Amendment Center.
Tiffany Villager is director/First Amendment studies at the First Amendment Center, which she joined in 1993. She also served as the center’s research manager and research coordinator, and developed the center’s library.
hmmmm…if some anti-Choice organisation wanted to do the same thing but showing abortions and their aftermath, would the same shielding requirement be laid? Since I consider higher-order non-humans to be people (I trained as a psychologist, and am well-aware of how we support our prejudices with our taxonomic choices) it seems legitimate to me to equate the two cases for legal purposes.
More personally, I’m a committed veg and strongly in favor of Choice, and I definitely would not want to be involuntarily exposed to either horror. So were it within my remit, I too would impose the shielding.
[...] it so that only those who specifically choose to watch will see it. PETA, supported by the ACLU, sued claiming that this requirement essentially amounted to a content based restriction on its free [...]