This week, an animal rights charity, Aussie Farms, unveiled an interactive map of factory farms, slaughterhouses and other “animal exploitation” facilities across Australia.
The group’s website says the map: "is an effort to force transparency on an industry dependent on secrecy. We believe in freedom of information as a powerful tool in the fight against animal abuse and exploitation."
The map – which also encourages visitors to upload photographs or videos obtained at the properties – drew ire from some farmers and politicians. National Farmers’ Federation President Fiona Simson called it a “gross invasion of privacy”.
Agriculture Minister David Littleproud was equally unimpressed, calling the map an “attack list” for activists. He said it posed biosecurity and other personal risks by encouraging vigilantes to break into properties.
So what does the law say about publicising materials like the map, or airing footage that may have been obtained when trespassing on private property?
'We had messages saying " we hope you die of cancer".' Find out what it's like to be the targest of animal rights activists.
Is footage obtained through trespass legal?
The law is somewhat ambivalent when it comes to trespassing on property to photograph and film the conduct of landowners. Trespassing itself is only one factor to be weighed up by the courts in determining whether to protect farmers’ interests.
Courts will only ban the use of footage obtained from private properties as a last resort. They will do so only if the trespasser acted in a manner that the average citizen would regard as unfair, and if the owner would suffer irreparable harm if the publication were to go ahead.
The leading case on this subject is the 2001 ABC v Lenah Game Meats. Activists had placed a hidden camera without permission inside a factory in Tasmania’s Lenah Valley. While a lower court injunction halted its broadcast at first, a High Court appeal overturned the decision.
It decided that although the footage had been filmed without the owners’ permission and involved a trespass, it was more important for the evidence of animal cruelty to be screened.
Dr Michael Mosley on the ethics of veganism - "It's very hard to justify eating other animals." Dr Michael Mosley says being vegan is the most ethical way to eat.
What about just punishing trespassers?
So, if they cannot stop the publication, can the farmers targeted by Aussie Farms punish the trespassers privately through the courts?
Farmers can sue for damages (compensation), but they would need to find the actual trespassers and be able to quantify their losses, both of which may be difficult.
Is there a remedy for farmers whose personal details, can be found online?
No, not unless the farmer can establish, under defamation law, he or she suffers an injury to their character by that publication.
The test is: does that website, in naming people who it asserts may be cruel to animals, hold them up for contempt or ridicule, and harm their reputation in the eyes of right-minded observers? It’s not an easy case for farmers to win, because few people are going to think less of farmers just because they are slaughtering meat for the market.
The defendant may argue a right-minded person would give some leeway for primary producers in putting food in the marketplace, so the activists’ information-spreading exercise can’t be defamatory.
And if there was clear evidence of cruelty, the activists have a defence against a claim for defamation because what they were saying was true.
Rick Sarre is affiliated with the Australian Labor Party.
