Max Kane outside Wisconsin courthouse before hearing last December. Should consuming raw milk be classified as a form of free speech? Raw milk might have a better shot at legal protection if it fell under such classification. The U.S. Supreme Court has just invoked the First Amendment protection for a guy distributing films showing dog fights and other animal cruelty.

I’m amazed that Congress could have enacted legislation to outlaw distribution of depictions of animal cruelty, since it’s such an obvious infringement on free speech. Not that I encourage such depictions, or have even the most remote interest in seeing them, but protecting the rights of fringe people and fringe media is a big part of the intention of the First Amendment.

Actually, there are signs that the raw milk issue might be heading toward more favorable consideration by judges–faint signs, mind you, but signs nonetheless. The Wisconsin judge’s decision on Max Kane was such a sign. In the grand scheme of things, the judge’s decision wasn’t the least big momentous. All he did was delay a decision on possibly jailing Max pending an appeals court decision. If the appeals court decides against Max–that could happen in two weeks, two months, or two years–he could well be facing the whole throw-him-in-jail-and-throw-away-the-keyl scenario once again.

But what the judge did, in effect, was say to Wisconsin’s Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection–This issue isn’t nearly as urgent or this individual nearly so dangerous that we have to force him to testify, or throw him in jail.

In a real sense, the judge was expressing irritation with DATCP. This isn’t the first time a judge has expressed irritation with regulator zeal in pursuing producers or distributors of unpasteurized milk. We had such an instance just a few weeks ago, in California, when a federal judge chastised a Justice Department lawyer representing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for trying to “hang (Organic Pastures Dairy Co.) until dead” by proposing endless inspections of the dairy that OPDC would have to pay for.

In 2008, a federal judge in Seattle refused to impose a plea deal under which the owners of Dee Creek dairy would have been placed on probation for a year for violating federal law on raw milk distribution after several of its consumers became ill. “I don’t see how we accomplish anything by having these two people put on probation,” the judge said. “I don’t get it.”

While judges seem ever less inclined to buy into the regulators’ hysteria, nor are they overruling regulator authority. We’ve seen that most clearly in the refusal of judges in New York state to infringe on the authority of New York Department of Agriculture and Markets in the case of Meadowsweet Dairy and its private limited liability company.

It often takes years for seemingly new concepts of legal rights to become accepted by the judiciary. That was the case with civil rights. Crazy to think that “food rights” should be such an instance, but it is. As I’ve said, judges are people, out there reading blogs and listening to their neighbors, and they need to be educated. We may be too far down the road of fear mongering and regulator hysteria to change things (as Dave Milano notes in a comment following my previous post, about prohibiting certain trees in New Mexico), but as the abuses of people like Max Kane become known, we can hope that a shift may be possible.
***
I just wrote an article for Grist.org in which I question the growing role of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration over our food system, as exemplified by the new food safety legislation. I suggest that the U.S. Department of Agriculture might actually be the lesser of two burecaucratic evils.