Since the Act prohibits making false statements in an attemp to gain consent to the control of property with the intent to damage the interests of the facility, its viewpoint discrimination requires strict scrutiny.
Not all attempts to damage the enterprise of an animal-processing facility are harms that would merit decreased First Amendment protections.
Under circuit precedent, the photographing of animals or taking notes about habitat is creating speech; the law's criminalization of this when done for the purpose of injuring the enterprise is similarly viewpoint discriminatory. The state can't limit the scope of its prohiitions due to the favor or disfavor of the message.
The same holds for trespassing with the intent to harm the enterprise. Although there is no right to trespass, false speech is an element of the offense through the requirement of effective consent.
DISSENT
Better remedy would be severence of deception from the intent requirement.
Regulating false statements of fact that cause harm is constitutional.
Right to choose who enters one's property is fundamental.
The law merely distinguishes harmful trespass from trespass without the intent to harm.
The actual speech here isn't implicated, but rather the intent behind the speech.
Private landowners generally have the right to restrict photography on their premises.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110563866.pdf