Reply to comment

Promotion of the idea of a business as deserving the same rights to privacy as a home can be seen as consistent with the Supreme Court's controversial decision that corporations have the same rights to free speech as individuals.
What seems inconsistent is the notion (as in the ag-gag proposals) that a business or a corporation should be exempt from the laws that try to regulate excesses of individuals that negatively effect their fellow citizens, the environment, and the nation.
Businesses and corporations are not sacrosanct refuges like families or homes. They invite public patronage and depend on public endorsement by which they hope to benefit. Their goal is to not be defrauded of their profits or their reputations. Another of their goals, however, seems to be that I should be defrauded of my right to know about any lawlessness and failures of ethics/morality that would help me to exercise my right to choose not to share their guilt or further empower them by doing business with them or my right to choose to prosecute them for illegal practices.
Any law that thwarts investigation of wrongdoing is unworthy of a country with our history; any honest exposure of wrongdoing in information collected by any method that our domestic government openly finds acceptable practice for itself should be applauded. I, for one am grateful.

With regard to cruel slaughterhouse practices, I say that Butterball is not the first known offender, that slaughter in general tends to dull feeling for animals' wellbeing, that vigilance and surveillance are important (even if done stealthily), that transparency should be a policy rather than an oversight, that there should be constant efforts to mimimize the distress of the animals that are killed for our benefit.
Someone once said something to the effect that man is the only animal who can remain on friendly terms with the animals he intends to eat until he eats them. The emphasis is on huMANity here. And if we can't manage it, maybe we should be vegetarian!