“Ag gag laws” would make it difficult for people to expose animal cruelty or their safety issues. The primary intent of the bill appears to prevent people from exposing animal brutalities. Thus, the bill would punish individuals exposing animal abuse or food safety standards on factory farms. Such laws would act as an obstacle in the path of public health, animal welfare and environment. In addition, the law would prevent individuals and authorities from uncovering cases including forced cannibalism and sending of sick cattle and their products for consumption in the society (Rasmussen, C., 2012). Thus, people might find it extremely difficult to fight for the welfare of animals due to absence of any photographic or video evidence. The criminal court rates evidence as the primary source in announcement of their verdict. Thus, in absence of any material evidence, the court may not be in a position to affirm any particular stance in legal proceedings related to the matter.
It can therefore be concluded that “Ag gag laws” is not in the best interest of the society and its members. The law would create unnecessary imposition on viewers for capturing images with the consent of the farm owner. In addition, the farm owner may accept or decline request received from visitors. Thus, biasness may creep in society and result in undue discrimination among society members (Rinehart, R., 2015). Furthermore, discrimination may pave way for violence and opposition from individuals resulting in outbreak of protests and revolts. In order to combat the existing problems and offer feasible solutions, it is recommended that farm lands with animals should come under public-private partnerships. In this form of entrepreneurship, private farm owners and government authorities would have equal rights. Both the parties can collectively re-look at existing farm and animal laws and make amendments accordingly for the benefit of larger section of the society.