Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please contact your senators to vote to pass this bill: H.R. 5566, the Prevention of Interstate Commerce in Animal Crush Videos Act. I cannot believe we have to make laws about this, but obviously we do.
My district's Representative described the situation as follows:
"All 50 states have laws on the books against animal cruelty, but prosecuting crush video cases has proved difficult because the videos rarely show names, dates or locations. This new legislation makes the interstate sale of such videos a crime subject to fines and imprisonment of up to five years.
"In April, during a case concerning dog-fighting videos, the Supreme Court overturned federal law that criminalized the sale of animal cruelty videos on the grounds that it was too broad and violated free speech protections. This new bill was specifically crafted to fit within narrower Constitutional boundaries by prohibiting the sale or distribution of obscene visual images depicting animal cruelty. The bill does not make illegal normal animal husbandry films or films depicting hunting, trapping and fishing."
I'm having a hard time digesting how banning Animal Cruelty infringes on freedom of speech, and am investigating how to protest that, as well. What judgment do these Justices have, anyway?
Please work to stop this insanity. Thank you.
Last edited by LookinForMayberry; 07-24-2010 at 06:18 AM..
Reason: Remove html code
I agree that cruelty to animals is bad. But there are already laws against animal cruelty. This law is wanting to ban "depictions" of animal cruelty. That's where I start to see a problem. And it's very broad, and "animal cruelty" is not very well defined, and what one person thinks is "cruel" is not always the same as what another thinks is cruel. Especially in the dog training world...this proposed law could potentially affect TV shows depicting dog training, military and police dogs working, heck even the Westminster Kennel Club dog show if someone gets it into their head that showing dogs is "cruel." Not to mention sport hunting and fishing, and what about videos/pictures showing animals hunting other animals? This could be considered 'cruelty' to the prey animal. I know it sounds a bit silly, but this proposed law leaves too much open to interpretation, IMO, and who will be doing the interpreting?
Furthermore, undercover videos that *expose* animal abuse would be illegal under this law.
While I agree that crushing small, helpless animals is wrong and should be against the law...it already is! I do think this law is infringing on freedom of speech. This new bill isn't really any less broad than the original one:
> `(c) Definitions- In this section--
>
> `(1) the term `animal crush video' means any visual depiction,
> including any photograph, motion-picture film, video recording, or
> electronic image, which depicts animals being intentionally crushed,
> burned, drowned, or impaled, that--
>
> `(A) depicts actual conduct in which a living animal is tortured,
> maimed, or mutilated that violates any criminal prohibition on
> intentional cruelty under Federal law or the law of the State in
> which the depiction is sold; and
While I agree that crushing small, helpless animals is wrong and should be against the law...it already is! I do think this law is infringing on freedom of speech.
Thank you for delving into the details on this one. Two questions:
Would crushing larger animals be okay with you?
Should freedom of speech be more important than acting humanely?
Well, I crush spiders but I'm not saying animal cruelty/abuse is right. Again, we already have laws against animal abuse. What is being depicted in the videos is *already* illegal. If *depicting* an illegal activity were illegal...well, we wouldn't be watching COPS haha. Or the news. Or movies like "Public Enemies" or shows like "Law & Order" etc., etc.
Though I'm not sure I understand the question #2. Speaking about (or writing or photographing, etc.) something is not the same as DOING that something.
The attacks on our liberties that use "animal protection" as an excuse have put thousands of people out of work. They have gotten thousands of animals killed for no reason and eliminated millions of homes for animals with bans on possession of breeds and species.
Every time someone wants to pass a law to "protect" animals, they do something to threaten humans, to diminish the quality of human lives, and to compromise our human rights in ways that are costly and destructive to us. In some states people have been put in jail for "dogfighting paraphernalia" like doggie treadmills that owners were using to keep their dogs exercised when they couldn't exercise outside because of weather conditions or other concerns.
The so-called animal protection organizations simply do not deserve any degree of control over our lives even if some people are cruel to animals. We must oppose all laws that compromise our rights.
Speaking about (or writing or photographing, etc.) something is not the same as DOING that something.
Who gets to be the judge of what's humane?
WE DO. Simple quiz: would I like that done to ME? If so, subject yourself to it. If it still feels like a good idea, then ask someone else to do the same. If the majority thinks it passes the simple quiz, then it's humane.
Quit abdicating responsibility for our behaviors. We are the sum of our collective society. If it is okay for one of us to crush another, that is a reflection on us all.
Furthermore, if one is photographing abuse, then one has knowledge of it, and should be working to stopping it. If the photography is used to sell videos to voyeurs of this heinous activity, then they are not working to stop it.
For comments on ones lack of ability to distinguish between the two, reread this post. Eventually, you will get an idea.
Every time someone wants to pass a law to "protect" animals, they do something to threaten humans, to diminish the quality of human lives, and to compromise our human rights in ways that are costly and destructive to us.
Uh-huh, right. It's us versus them. Sure. Whatever. Good luck with that view on life.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,784,973 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by LookinForMayberry
Thank you for delving into the details on this one. Two questions:
Would crushing larger animals be okay with you?
Should freedom of speech be more important than acting humanely?
I just want to understand who I am reading.
A lot of hunters have been very concerned that this would create a situation in which, for example, posting a video of a hunt on YouTube would be considered criminal. The current incarnation of the bill contains language that broadly exempts hunting so I think these concerns are unfounded, but there is still a lot of knee-jerk opposition to anything unconditionally supported by the HSUS.
To me, the bill adequately protects legitimate video depictions of hunting, does not infringe any rights and will have zero impact on anyone other than those who derive sexual pleasure from watching a naked woman in high heels crush rodents underfoot. It will pass (if it hasn't already) because no one wants to hear "This congressman/senator voted to keep cruelty to animals legal" in a campaign year.
I don't foresee a problem, but I don't have a crystal ball either.
When you say that you are "having a hard time digesting how banning Animal Cruelty infringes on freedom of speech," you have defined your misunderstanding of the Supreme Court's decision. The freedom of speech (including depictions in video form) enshrined in the First Amendment to the US Constitution has been attacked for over 200 years by those who say, "Yes, but THIS speech (depiction) is so offensive it must be outlawed."
Condoning the speech (depiction) is NOT condoning the act, no matter how often you try to make it so. I want my civil rights undiluted by any attempt to carve out exceptions, now matter how strongly anyone feels about the offense given by words or depictions. My rights will NOT be protected if I keep giving them away for a good cause.
BTW, I agree that this bill will pass into law, but, if it is ever used, it will be struck down again as unconstitutional.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Already done! Thanks for posting!
but I'm not saying animal cruelty/abuse is right. Again, we already have laws against animal abuse. What is being depicted in the videos is *already* illegal. If *depicting* an illegal activity were illegal...well, we wouldn't be watching COPS haha. Or the news. Or movies like "Public Enemies" or shows like "Law & Order" etc., etc.
