Amy Meyer [“ ‘Ag-gag’ legislation hurts us all,” op-ed, June 9] was incorrect in asserting that laws regulating undercover agriculture filming would stifle free speech or hamper whistleblowers. Most state proposals this year simply created a duty to promptly report possible evidence of animal abuse to law enforcement. It would be absurd for someone to argue, in a similar vein, that a duty to report child abuse creates a “gag” on free speech.

Is the primary purpose of undercover filming to stop animal abuse or to create media and fundraising campaigns? If it’s the former, animal advocates shouldn’t have a problem with a duty to report, which enables law enforcement to act quickly. If it’s the latter, activists lack moral credibility.

The writer is a research analyst at the Center for Consumer Freedom.