Supreme Court voids depictions of animal cruelty act...discuss :)

[Chapelle]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/20/AR2010042001980.html?hpid=topnews

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Tco87]

According to the article, "Roberts said the federal law was so broadly written that it could include all depictions of killing animals, even hunting videos"
In that case, I can understand striking down the law for not being written specifically enough.

That being said, "crush" videos should definitely be illegal and the people who make and participate in them should have to experience what those poor animals had to feel.

 

[HopefulAg]

That being said, "crush" videos should definitely be illegal and the people who make and participate in them should have to experience what those poor animals had to feel.

Is that what it sounds like? People crushing animals and filming it?

 

[twelvetigers]

OMG I've seen one of those! I didn't believe it, but I watched it. I wish I hadn't.

It's a fetish, if you can even CALL it that. Asian girl, bikini, high heels, and a crying kitten. Use your imagination in the worst way possible.

The heel of the shoe went through the eye socket...

If I were choosing a memory to erase, seeing that would be way up on the list.

I agree - people that do that, film that, or enjoy that for some SICK reason deserve the same or worse. It really brings on a feeling of revolt for the human race.

 

[BlacKAT33]

i can understand why it was voted down since it was so general. the good thing is it sounds like they do want to move forward to produce something more specific. ive never heard of these crush videos before, . When i first read the title i thought it was going to talk about animal abuse in factory farms or labs etc. not for a persons entertainment. some topics just break my heart to read

 

[crittergal]

OMG I've seen one of those! I didn't believe it, but I watched it. I wish I hadn't.

It's a fetish, if you can even CALL it that. Asian girl, bikini, high heels, and a crying kitten. Use your imagination in the worst way possible.

The heel of the shoe went through the eye socket...

If I were choosing a memory to erase, seeing that would be way up on the list.

I agree - people that do that, film that, or enjoy that for some SICK reason deserve the same or worse. It really brings on a feeling of revolt for the human race.

Wow. Just, wow.

I'd like the visual to leave my head now. I don't envy you for actually watching it.

 

[BlacKAT33]

It's a fetish, if you can even CALL it that. Asian girl, bikini, high heels, and a crying kitten. Use your imagination in the worst way possible.

The heel of the shoe went through the eye socket...

ahhhhhhh this is even worse than i had imagined it! i think i may have to stop reading this thread. wtf is wrong with people. not only to watch it...but where do they get these girls to DO the acts!?! heartless SOB's

 

[twelvetigers]

I was like, twelve. I would have known better later on.

It's a hard emotion to portray in a forum post - complete and utter disgust - so I hope that came across.

 

[Willowhand]

According to the article, "Roberts said the federal law was so broadly written that it could include all depictions of killing animals, even hunting videos"
In that case, I can understand striking down the law for not being written specifically enough.

That being said, "crush" videos should definitely be illegal and the people who make and participate in them should have to experience what those poor animals had to feel.

I agree... from what I've heard, the law was poorly worded. Making it so broad would probably spread law enforcement resources even more thinly, wasting them on things which aren't serious. I agree with the thought that they should be finding new ways to target and eliminate such deplorable acts.

I had never heard of this "crush" fetish and video industry before now, and though I shouldn't be surprised I really am shocked. I can't imagine how some people can do such abysmally vile things. And the idea of people doing it and watching it for entertainment or sexual gratification makes it even worse. I don't have words to express the horror and disgust I feel at this.

 

[HopefulAg]

It's a fetish, if you can even CALL it that. Asian girl, bikini, high heels, and a crying kitten. Use your imagination in the worst way possible.

The heel of the shoe went through the eye socket...

Oh **** that's even worse. I thought it was crushing like insects or rats or something.

Man, I've been around the internet a long time and seen some weird stuff, but some of the **** on it STILL shocks me.

 

[katryn]

I am glad that they still seem to be open to a more specifically worded law. To me, if you can be prosecuted for committing acts of animal cruelty it follows that making videos of animal cruelty is just as bad, if not much worse.

And I thank my lucky stars that I have never actually seen a crush video. I've seen one (and it was too many) "funny" (and I pray to God, fake) video of a kitten being sliced with a kitchen knife. I about disowned the friend that sent it to my husband.

It's things like that that make me glad I have foster babies to snuggle and love right now.

 

[VeganSoprano]

I think this ruling follows recent precedent. It strikes down a law that is so broadly worded that it could be interpreted to make somethingf illegel that is quite legal on the basis of precedent. However, it also leaves the door open for a more narrowly worded law that would have the intended effect without the unintended effects.

 

[Minnerbelle]

seriously, why couldn't they have just worded the bill to ban the recording of something that was illegal. So that the recording itself would be evidence for the illegal act itself, and there would be double wammy for trying to distribute it?

 

[Willowhand]

seriously, why couldn't they have just worded the bill to ban the recording of something that was illegal. So that the recording itself would be evidence for the illegal act itself, and there would be double wammy for trying to distribute it?

Freedom of speech... and besides, if you ban the recording of anything illegal then there go security cameras, video evidence, etc. Not to mention that everything illegal is not necessarily on the same level of immorality. I'm not a supporter of the use of illegal substances, but I am not morally opposed to "graphic depictions of pot smoking" (which is fortunate, given news coverage of another of today's events ). As I mentioned earlier, the problem with many types of blanket bans is that they needlessly waste resources on less serious transgressions.

I would be happier if they could just focus on stopping the animal cruelty itself... it's not so much the videos, but the fact that what they depict actually occurred that is horrible. But unfortunately there is money to be made by selling these videos, which gives the perpetrators more motivation to perform the acts which end up on film. So I do think that it is necessary to go after both the people who are performing the action and those who are selling films/photographs. But I also think this type of legal action needs to have a focused target to be effective.

 

[Tiktaalik]

I think that while the videos are disgusting and awful, it's enough to have the act alone be criminal. The animal's suffering isn't increased any by the videotaping, so prosecuting the taping of the illegal act is more legislating morality than it is legislating for the animal's protection. Profit from sale may provide an incentive, but it's naïve to think that sale of depictions of an illegal act will decrease because the sale becomes illegal.

If the people making these videos are willing to produce evidence of them performing animal abuse, it seems unlikely to me that making distribution illegal would deter them much, especially in the Internet age.

 

[Minnerbelle]

Freedom of speech... and besides, if you ban the recording of anything illegal then there go security cameras, video evidence, etc. Not to mention that everything illegal is not necessarily on the same level of immorality. I'm not a supporter of the use of illegal substances, but I am not morally opposed to "graphic depictions of pot smoking" (which is fortunate, given news coverage of another of today's events ). As I mentioned earlier, the problem with many types of blanket bans is that they needlessly waste resources on less serious transgressions.

Oh oops I didn't mean to say anything illegal... I meant only in the scope of violent acts that constitute animal cruelty. People doing stupid sh** on their own accord is fine, but making entertainment out of cruelty/violence against those who can't consent is beyond distasteful IMO, especially when the act itself is illegal.

I would be happier if they could just focus on stopping the animal cruelty itself... it's not so much the videos, but the fact that what they depict actually occurred that is horrible. But unfortunately there is money to be made by selling these videos, which gives the perpetrators more motivation to perform the acts which end up on film. So I do think that it is necessary to go after both the people who are performing the action and those who are selling films/photographs. But I also think this type of legal action needs to have a focused target to be effective.

It's kind of like child pornography. It's rather difficult to stop pedophilia, especially when it's well hidden... but it's more doable to intercept the explicit distribution of child pornography. There's really no need for people to make money off of it.

 

[Tiktaalik]

It's kind of like child pornography. It's rather difficult to stop pedophilia, especially when it's well hidden... but it's more doable to intercept the explicit distribution of child pornography. There's really no need for people to make money off of it.

I would argue that criminalizing the media in addition to the act diverts attention from the act of abuse to the media. Restricting distribution of the videos to people who are truly depraved enough to go to the extra effort to seek them out may be comfortable and easy, but it does little to protect the animals (or children) being abused.

Also, a law against this sort of thing in a society where people are allowed to kill animals in certain ways for certain reasons makes this question even more complex than the issue of CP. It is unilaterally considered inappropriate to put children in sexual situations, but many forms of animal killing are legal and sanctioned. The sticky problem then becomes prosecuting intent - the crush videos are easy to target, because the context is pretty obvious. What about, say, a hunting-type video, in which an animal is killed in legitimate context (hunting) but with perverse intent (gratification of the sort some people derive from the crush videos). It is difficult to find lines as one gets away from the extremes.

 

[Minnerbelle]

I would argue that criminalizing the media in addition to the act diverts attention from the act of abuse to the media. Restricting distribution of the videos to people who are truly depraved enough to go to the extra effort to seek them out may be comfortable and easy, but it does little to protect the animals (or children) being abused.

hmmm... interesting... not sure what the facts are on this, but do you really think that not criminalizing something like child pornography will make things better for the children? are there any stats to back this up? not trying to be argumentative here, i'm genuinely curious.

 

[Tiktaalik]

hmmm... interesting... not sure what the facts are on this, but do you really think that not criminalizing something like child pornography will make things better for the children? are there any stats to back this up? not trying to be argumentative here, i'm genuinely curious.

That was a slightly slipped-up argument. I don't mean to defend child pornography at all. I'm just trying to illustrate that crush videos and the like are not the same as CP. In CP, the dissemination of media can legitimately be considered further abuse, because it has social consequences for the depicted person. Criminalization of "snuff porn" or televised depictions of death for humans has a similar rationale, in that it defames the character of the deceased, causing social problems for those close to that person and tarnishing their posthumous reputation. In this situation, though, the animals have no concept of human social norms or consequences, and have no reputation, so the spread of the media does no further harm to them - it is already too late for the victim.

It's better, I think, to target the source (abuse) and not the symptom (media). Kids and animals are abused off-camera all the time as well, and I'd hardly argue that the camera's presence or absence makes much difference in how they suffer. In the passage you quote, I was making the argument that criminalization of CP just drove distribution underground - it did not solve the problem. We still see people getting picked up for that stuff on the news all the time, because if sick people want to get their fix, they'll find some way of finding it - either by doing it themselves or by getting videos illegally.

Which is of course not to say that it should be widely distributed or sold commercially in stores, either, but anyone who tried to make a publication like that would be taken down right away because the acts necessary for its production would be illegal, so that's kind of a nonissue.

 

[sumstorm]

If video taping illegal activity becomes illegal, most of the evidence used to convict animal abusers will be obtaind illegally and those who collect it and turn it over to prosecuters would be at risk of criminal charges. Right now, in a lot of places, the best way to obtain legal action against criminal activiites is to film a depiction of those activities. This could easily stray into poisoned fruit territory. I dislike this stuff, but I value freedom of speech.

 

[Tiktaalik]

If video taping illegal activity becomes illegal, most of the evidence used to convict animal abusers will be obtaind illegally and those who collect it and turn it over to prosecuters would be at risk of criminal charges. Right now, in a lot of places, the best way to obtain legal action against criminal activiites is to film a depiction of those activities. This could easily stray into poisoned fruit territory. I dislike this stuff, but I value freedom of speech.

+1, I was going to use that as an example at some point - the only difference between an exposé video of abuse and an "entertainment" video of abuse is the filmer's intent, and any attempt to prosecute based on intent begins to stray into thoughtcrime territory.

 

[Tco87]

T
It's better, I think, to target the source (abuse) and not the symptom (media). Kids and animals are abused off-camera all the time as well, and I'd hardly argue that the camera's presence or absence makes much difference in how they suffer. In the passage you quote, I was making the argument that criminalization of CP just drove distribution underground - it did not solve the problem. We still see people getting picked up for that stuff on the news all the time, because if sick people want to get their fix, they'll find some way of finding it - either by doing it themselves or by getting videos illegally.

Which is of course not to say that it should be widely distributed or sold commercially in stores, either, but anyone who tried to make a publication like that would be taken down right away because the acts necessary for its production would be illegal, so that's kind of a nonissue.

I agree that we need to focus more on preventing animal abuse, rather than the marketing of videos of animals abuse. However, I think that crush videos and similar media should be illegal, because unlike child pornography the punishment for animal abuse isn't always very substantial. I don't know exactly what someone convicted of child abuse gets sentenced with, but I know that they get put into jail for a long time and have to be registered sex offenders forever after. Punishment for animal abuse varies, but I know that in a lot of areas it's not significant. To me, making the videos or pictures of abuse such as crush illegal helps to keep the people who participate in those activities in jail longer.

 

[Tiktaalik]

I agree that we need to focus more on preventing animal abuse, rather than the marketing of videos of animals abuse. However, I think that crush videos and similar media should be illegal, because unlike child pornography the punishment for animal abuse isn't always very substantial. I don't know exactly what someone convicted of child abuse gets sentenced with, but I know that they get put into jail for a long time and have to be registered sex offenders forever after. Punishment for animal abuse varies, but I know that in a lot of areas it's not significant. To me, making the videos or pictures of abuse such as crush illegal helps to keep the people who participate in those activities in jail longer.

I think the solution is to make the penalties for animal abuse harsher (as they definitely need to be - did you hear Michael Vick is planning on coming back and playing again?), not to criminalize a protected mode of expression. Especially because abuse of animals is linked to abuse of other humans (which is the rationale, or so I hear, for laws that put child abusers on the list forever -that they may offend again), I think they should start carrying over some of the penalties for child abuse to animal abusers. I would, for example, very much like to know if I was moving in next to a guy with a conviction for dogfighting.

 

[nyanko]

I think the solution is to make the penalties for animal abuse harsher (as they definitely need to be - did you hear Michael Vick is planning on coming back and playing again?)

Vick came back last season as a backup for the Philadelphia Eagles, who just got rid of their starting QB (lol dumb) and once Kevin Kolb bombs out because he sucks, I think Vick will be seeing a lot more snaps.

To be honest, I don't really have a problem with him playing again, since he has served his time.

 

[bunnity]

Vick came back last season as a backup for the Philadelphia Eagles, who just got rid of their starting QB (lol dumb) and once Kevin Kolb bombs out because he sucks, I think Vick will be seeing a lot more snaps.

To be honest, I don't really have a problem with him playing again, since he has served his time.

While I agree that the Eagles are idiots for getting rid of McNabb, I am incredibly against Vick playing in the NFL and especially in this city. I don't think there is an amount of time you can "do" for electrocuting dogs that makes it OK for you to go play on a national stage and make millions again.

I was especially disgusted at the Eagles for signing him. Philadelphia has a huge dogfighting culture and I see these dogs every day at work. I have seen more unspeakable things done to dogs in this city than anyone would want me to type out. To set this douchebag up as a hero to the kids of Philadelphia tells them yet again that it is OK to abuse animals and to fight them.

I have never seen him apologize - he said he has made mistakes, but a mistake is bumping someone's car in a parking lot, not torturing an animal. He has done nothing to help the animals in this city's shelters - my shelter gets all kinds of love and support from the Phillies but nothing from the Eagles.

 

[Tiktaalik]

Vick came back last season as a backup for the Philadelphia Eagles, who just got rid of their starting QB (lol dumb) and once Kevin Kolb bombs out because he sucks, I think Vick will be seeing a lot more snaps.

To be honest, I don't really have a problem with him playing again, since he has served his time.

I think his punishment was too lenient. Legally, he's served his time, but I don't think the law is stern enough. This isn't something one can correct ex post facto, of course.

Moreover, professional football isn't merely a game - it's a full-time job, in which people are paid large salaries as entertainers. The players are employees. Regardless of talent, nobody has a right to play football for money, and I think the NFL would do well to seriously consider what kind of players it puts forth as its public face.

That said, it is not my decision to make. However, I still disagree with a hiring practice that eschews hiring ethical people for the sake of profit (which, essentially, is what the NFL is doing by permitting him back in). In other industries, people who have committed crimes are often categorically excluded from consideration for employment based on what the crimes say about their character, even if that person has technically "done their time." He wouldn't get a job at a software company with that on his record, and so I fail to see why he should be permitted to have a job with the NFL.

 

[nyanko]

bunnity:

I totally agree that Vick is a douchebag who has shown absolutely no remorse for his actions. It speaks volumes to me that all his PR people have done is align him with PeTA and HSUS. To me, that shows that they aren't willing to do even the most basic of research to figure out the proper entities to whom they should pay lip service, nevermind actual support.

That being said, I don't really buy into the idea that professional athletes should be held to "role model" standards. It's great that some of the ones who should be assume that role on their own, but I don't think it's something you can reasonably expect of a sampling of 20-something males from widely varying backgrounds. In the end, him not being able to play would only enforce a martyr status, and it's my personal opinion that kids who grow up being prone to thinking of animals in this way won't be impacted by this.

Tiktaalik:

You can't really compare a job at a software company, for which there are likely millions of qualified applicants who could take the position and perform equally well as your hypothetical programming dogfighter, to one as an NFL quarterback. Hell, there aren't even 32 individuals who can really excel at the position in the NFL at any given time (see the quarterback situations in Cleveland, San Francisco, St. Louis, Oakland, Buffalo, etc...). It's quite a more specialized skillset. It remains to be seen if Vick is capable of becoming a starter again in the first place, though.

 

[Tiktaalik]

Tiktaalik:
You can't really compare a job at a software company, for which there are likely millions of qualified applicants who could take the position and perform equally well as your hypothetical programming dogfighter, to one as an NFL quarterback. Hell, there aren't even 32 individuals who can really excel at the position in the NFL at any given time (see the quarterback situations in Cleveland, San Francisco, St. Louis, Oakland, Buffalo, etc...). It's quite a more specialized skillset. It remains to be seen if Vick is capable of becoming a starter again in the first place, though.

My core argument doesn't hinge on that example, although I can see your point - it is a field in which in which applicants, rather than positions, are in high demand, and this shifts the balance of power from a situation of application to one of recruitment.

That said, it is my opinion that the NFL would do well to carefully consider the effect their hiring policies have on the organization's reputation, and what activities they are enabling by paying salaries to criminals. What bothers me is that Vick is the rule rather than the exception - the NFL has a history of fielding players with criminal records. I think the ideal, ethical hiring policy would be to give positions that pay so well and afford so much prestige to good players with clean records unilaterally. This isn't what happens, but I think this is the example of the is-ought problem - what is the current reality (and, most likely, will remain reality indefinitely) is not necessarily ethical.

Vick can't ethically be thrown out without also throwing out the other offenders who have returned to play, of course. The NFL's current course of action is the right one, but only in the muddied ethical framework they have built for themselves by allowing other criminals to play as well.

 

[purplesaurus]

While I agree that the Eagles are idiots for getting rid of McNabb, I am incredibly against Vick playing in the NFL and especially in this city. I don't think there is an amount of time you can "do" for electrocuting dogs that makes it OK for you to go play on a national stage and make millions again.

I have to agree with you here. And another thing I read was that being involved in gambling alone, by the NFL's own rules, could be grounds for permanent dismissal. Gambling and animal abuse? Seems like a no-brainer for me.

 

[lyndaelyzoo]

I am so sick of Michael Vick that I made a painting in his honor called Revenge of the Pit Bulls. That criminal needs to be put back in jail where he belongs.

 

[StartingoverVet]

While I agree that the Eagles are idiots for getting rid of McNabb, I am incredibly against Vick playing in the NFL and especially in this city. I don't think there is an amount of time you can "do" for electrocuting dogs that makes it OK for you to go play on a national stage and make millions again.

I was especially disgusted at the Eagles for signing him. Philadelphia has a huge dogfighting culture and I see these dogs every day at work. I have seen more unspeakable things done to dogs in this city than anyone would want me to type out. To set this douchebag up as a hero to the kids of Philadelphia tells them yet again that it is OK to abuse animals and to fight them.

I have never seen him apologize - he said he has made mistakes, but a mistake is bumping someone's car in a parking lot, not torturing an animal. He has done nothing to help the animals in this city's shelters - my shelter gets all kinds of love and support from the Phillies but nothing from the Eagles.

I completely agree. Philly was one of the few places where he would actually be welcomed with his dogfighting background. And you know if Vick were successful Eagles fans would forgive just about anything. Thankfully, when he fails, I can't wait to see cr*p he will have to put up with.

 

[bunnity]

I completely agree. Philly was one of the few places where he would actually be welcomed with his dogfighting background. And you know if Vick were successful Eagles fans would forgive just about anything. Thankfully, when he fails, I can't wait to see cr*p he will have to put up with.

I'm obviously dealing with a very biased group of people since most of the Philadelphians I know are working or volunteering in shelters, but I am happy to say I have encountered many many people who have sworn not to watch the Eagles anymore. But you are right that there are a lot of people who don't care and just want to see them win at any cost.

Of course, as a Steelers fan, I have my own ethical decisions to make.

 

[nyanko]

Of course, as a Steelers fan, I have my own ethical decisions to make.

I think Ben will be leaving. It's a total and complete derail though and I'm not happy with the NFL for handling this the way they are either.

 

[sumstorm]

I think they should start carrying over some of the penalties for child abuse to animal abusers. I would, for example, very much like to know if I was moving in next to a guy with a conviction for dogfighting.

I agree that penalties for abuse (human or animal) should be harsher; but there is a lot of gray area in there. In some states, a 14 yo can get married to an 18+, no issues, in others, being over the dividing line of 18 can get you on a list for life. To me, the issue at question is the act. There are very legal acts that I would never be ok with (even ones that vets do) and I wouldn't want to be associated with, but at the same time, if my neighbor discovers their horse has broken a leg, and the vet is an hour away, I hope he knows how to safely put that animal down...but someone, somewhere, is going to decide that is abuse. Maybe the takes a film to show that the horse truely was in pain and needed euth and the vet said they can't get there. Now he gets double slapped and put on a list? Same thing for the 17 yo who attended college my freshman year whose boyfriend (18yo) was brought up on statutory rape charges by her parents because it wasn't Christian, but they also thought being Christian meant staying home, marrying, and having babies. His name will be on a list for the rest of his life, and he will be harrassed b/c the list just says he is a sexual predator... not that his girlfriend shacked up with him to save money when her parents refused any financial support and then pressed charges. Big differences, in my opinion, between that and the 13yo and an adult, or toddler abuse, etc. I am not a fan of lifetime lists. I understand the high incidence of repeat offenders, but if it is a life sentence, then make it so, don't try to use the public to police via lists.

 

[Tiktaalik]

I agree that penalties for abuse (human or animal) should be harsher; but there is a lot of gray area in there. In some states, a 14 yo can get married to an 18+, no issues, in others, being over the dividing line of 18 can get you on a list for life. To me, the issue at question is the act. There are very legal acts that I would never be ok with (even ones that vets do) and I wouldn't want to be associated with, but at the same time, if my neighbor discovers their horse has broken a leg, and the vet is an hour away, I hope he knows how to safely put that animal down...but someone, somewhere, is going to decide that is abuse. Maybe the takes a film to show that the horse truely was in pain and needed euth and the vet said they can't get there. Now he gets double slapped and put on a list? Same thing for the 17 yo who attended college my freshman year whose boyfriend (18yo) was brought up on statutory rape charges by her parents because it wasn't Christian, but they also thought being Christian meant staying home, marrying, and having babies. His name will be on a list for the rest of his life, and he will be harrassed b/c the list just says he is a sexual predator... not that his girlfriend shacked up with him to save money when her parents refused any financial support and then pressed charges. Big differences, in my opinion, between that and the 13yo and an adult, or toddler abuse, etc. I am not a fan of lifetime lists. I understand the high incidence of repeat offenders, but if it is a life sentence, then make it so, don't try to use the public to police via lists.

I will concede that lists are imperfect, and both child abuse laws and animal abuse laws require serious reform (for example, teenagers have gotten CP charges for taking pictures of themselves), but the idea behind them (keep past offenders away from future victims) does have some value. Perhaps restraining orders or something would be more effective.

The truth is that any law will have unintended consequences. However, we cannot fall afoul of the nirvana fallacy and decide to hold out for a perfect law that does not exist - our options consist only of better and worse laws.