By Blake Jackson
A Senate-approved bill in Kentucky, supported by the poultry industry, is raising concerns as it introduces new restrictions on drone operators. Senate Bill 16, sponsored by Senator John Schickel, aims to address concerns raised by the poultry industry regarding drones flying over their facilities. Critics argue that the bill, part of a series of "ag-gag" laws across the country, may inadvertently criminalize activities and hinder whistleblowers investigating health and safety hazards in food production.
The bill targets concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and food manufacturing or processing facilities, adding them to the list of "key infrastructure." Flying drones over these sites would be classified as misdemeanor trespassing. The legislation also extends restrictions to photography and filming of CAFOs and food-processing sites.
Graham Hall from Tyson Foods testified in favor of the bill, highlighting the potential disruption caused by drones and citing safety concerns for employees and livestock. The bill aims to protect facilities from interference and safeguard operations.
However, opponents, including environmental legal group Kentucky Resources Council and some Democrats, express worries about unintended consequences. They argue that the law may impede legitimate activities such as employees documenting workplace violations or neighbors filming from their property. Concerns also extend to potential violations of First Amendment rights.
Todd Blevins, the Kentucky state director of the Humane Society of the United States, questions the wisdom of passing a law that has faced constitutional challenges in other states. The bill's sponsor, Senator Schickel, dismisses some concerns as "farfetched" but acknowledges a willingness to address unintended consequences.
In summary, Kentucky's Senate Bill 16, backed by the poultry industry, seeks to regulate drone activity over agricultural facilities. While proponents emphasize the need to protect businesses, critics fear the legislation may have broader implications, stifling documentation of potential hazards and raising constitutional concerns. The bill's impact on various activities, from workplace documentation to private property filming, remains a subject of debate.
Photo Credit: gettyimages-branex
Categories: Kentucky, Government & Policy