What is Digg?85 Comments
- nahsrocketeer75, on 04/21/2009, -0/+30Just when you think human beings can't possibly be any sicker: Last line of the article: "Growing in popularity are what are called 'crush' videos, in which women, with their faces unseen, are shown stomping helpless animals such as rabbits to death with spiked-heel shoes or with their bare feet."
- manzplan, on 04/21/2009, -5/+34outlawing the sale???? outlawing the SALE???? they should be outlawed to make! Thus the sale isnt even possible.
- GovernmentsGun, on 04/21/2009, -0/+13It is already illegal to make, in all 50 states, and the District of Colombia. But that's not stopping it's production.
- GoKings, on 04/22/2009, -0/+12If you argue that the sale of this is ok because of free speech, then you have to argue the sale of child pornography is ok as well.
- asgardshill, on 04/22/2009, -0/+10I Googled "crush video" yesterday because I saw a reference to this on another site.
Wish I hadn't. It used to be so nice to sleep. - CaptainCool53, on 04/22/2009, -0/+9Isn't there already a mechanism in place to deal with this? It's illegal to profit from illegal activity. Animal cruelty is illegal activity.
- manzplan, on 04/21/2009, -0/+9right so if they are illegal to make.. then there should be no question about them being illegal to sell.
- GovernmentsGun, on 04/21/2009, -2/+10Capitalism has boundaries. You are displaying them right now.
That being said, this has nothing to do with capitalism and could be produced under any economic system. This is not a function of capitalism. This is a function of a sub-cultures interest. - inactive, on 04/21/2009, -2/+10Are U F@#king kidding me. What the hell. I give to the Acaap monthly and we have taken in several homeless dogs and cats, plus go to shelters and help. I think if we go back to old school and do and eye for an eye aspect of punishment then people would not be as F@#king SICK. Crush videos let's do this to them. I'm sick.
- BrownieMix, on 04/22/2009, -2/+10Animal cruelty is like kid abuse, you're picking on someone completely helpless. I'm glad this law is surfacing.
- IgorUnchained, on 04/22/2009, -2/+9If something is against the law, it is illegal to do and tape yourself. It makes sense.
I think this is another case where there has been a problem all along, but the internet
brings that problem to your front door. I can understand the arguments from the
"other" side....animals die every day and it isnt the rabbit in the crush video
might have had a better life and quicker death than the chicken in your Mcnuggets.
That said, you have to have ZERO soul to see that kind of video and not want the maker of the video
strung up by his/her internal plumbing. Preying on the weak and helpless never stops at just animals.....these
people should be sent to jail and seen as something akin to a child molester. - benologist, on 04/22/2009, -0/+6You have to wonder who the ***** comes up with this ***** let alone would actually do it.
- CaptainCool53, on 04/22/2009, -2/+8Interesting. I'd argue that because people are born free with inherent liberties, so are other animals. What do all humans possess that no other animal does to afford the humans liberty and not the rest of the animal kingdom? Conscious/intelligent thought? Babies and mentally disabled people may not possess these, yet they are still afforded rights.
I think the basis for liberty is sentience, or capacity for sentience, which all members of the animal kingdom possess. - spira, on 04/22/2009, -0/+5Neither this article nor the comments here address some of the major issues raised by this case. Some of the videos involve the filming of events that are legal and even "normal" in the countries the videos were taken in - bullfighting in Spain, dogfighting in Japan. According to the law, however, it is illegal to sell these videos in the United States, despite the fact that no law was broken by either the filming or the staging of these events. So this law is not about profiting from illegal activity that is filmed. The Supreme Court has ruled that it can be illegal to sell video of child pornography here even if the activities filmed are not considered illegal in the country where filming was done (say, for example, because 15-year olds are not considered children in another country where child pornography is still illegal). So the question for the court is whether to expand that doctrine to animal cruelty, and declare that laws that make videos of animal cruelty illegal even when there has been no underlying crime constitutional. This is not about defining animal cruelty, or encouraging animal cruelty, or profiting from illegal acts; it's about the first amendment and its limits. So the answer is not, at least to me, an obvious one.
- benologist, on 04/22/2009, -0/+4When you say people do you mean the same people who elected the government and gave them the responsibility to appoint others to decide these things on our behalf?
Or other people? - inactive, on 04/22/2009, -2/+6I would like few things more than to see the makers of these videos, and those who get their jollies from them strung, drawn, and quartered.
- Swivelstick, on 04/22/2009, -0/+4or watch it.
- BrownieMix, on 04/22/2009, -0/+3It's already illegal to make, but it obviously isn't stopping anybody.
- tjordan90, on 04/22/2009, -0/+3When we like the content of speech, we love the First Amendment. When we hate the content, we all too often hate the First Amendment.
What we forget is that the First Amendment is a policy choice. It embodies a policy of tolerance and restraint. In so many areas of our lives we fail to tolerate the views and ideas of others -- we rush to judgment, form opinions, and fail to empathize with others. But, through the First Amendment, we engage in a moral struggle to tolerate speech and ideas that we don't like. The First Amendment cultivates tolerance in other areas too: the history of the First Amendment correlates generally with the history of tolerance in American society (namely, racial and gender tolerance). As we've tolerated more ideas and more expression (pornography, flag burning, profanity, hate speech), we've come to tolerate more people, different lifestyles, religious differences, etc. And yes, I believe in making one's maxim "tolerate the intolerant" -- and prevail with the moral trump card.
With the foregoing in mind, I'll say that this is a tough case. But let's remember that distributing/possessing/watching videos of animal cruelty is not equivalent to committing acts of animal cruelty. Distribution may incentivize future acts of animal cruelty -- that is a strong argument and could be persuasive in this case. But, on the other hand, the particular instance of animal cruelty has already been done and there is no further suffering by passing along evidence "documenting" that past act, as despicable as it may be. Any future acts of animal cruelty would be handled through an approach that doesn't require disabling free speech, namely prosecution of the persons responsible for those acts of animal cruelty. - python56, on 04/22/2009, -0/+3I'm afraid to click on the article because I don't want to be led to any disturbing images or videos. I have already been disturbed enough by some PETA videos starring... deer... and foxes... *Shudders*
- iwhitness, on 04/22/2009, -0/+3@URnottheonly1 did you even try to understand his argument or do you stand by blindly defending your obviously flawed logic? (And so help me god, if you come back with "animals do not have constitutional rights" I am going to find you and punch you in the face)
- Scabdates, on 04/22/2009, -8/+11I agree that these videos are disgusting and horrible, but they should still be covered under free speech. The people who make them should be prosecuted if possible, but you can't limit free speech like this. Especially when you can't determine someone's intent (what if it's an animal rights group showing the horrors of cruelty?). I'm all for animals and animal rights, but I think free speech wins this one.
- ptheroux, on 04/22/2009, -0/+3No one is trying to justify cruelty. It's just that that the first amendment protects both popular and unpopular speech.
- HAL90000, on 04/22/2009, -1/+4Hmm.
While I'd agree that the act should be illegal, and filming the act with the intention to profit should also be illegal (seeing as how that'd make you an accessory, essentially), merely viewing or possessing the videos should not be illegal. As far as selling it, I guess it could be argued that since you are directly profiting from an illegal act that it should be illegal to sell. However, that would also mean that selling a beheading video would have to then be illegal.
I don't know, this one is tough. - tjordan90, on 04/22/2009, -0/+3@Comfort: Also, it should be apparent that the First Amendment is not only "the law" but as a constitutional provision trumps laws enacted by legislatures, and as far as US law goes, nothing trumps the First Amendment or any other constitutional provision.
Just to add one further thought: The First Amendment is a policy choice to utilize a rational, deliberative approach rather than an instinctive, visceral approach (which is why "I know it when I see it" is NOT the test for pornography, contrary to popular lore). Tolerance is a peculiarly human condition that requires the highest abstract reasoning abilities.
The only point I was trying to make was that we shouldn't simply act in a knee-jerk fashion and say "animal cruelty is disgusting, ergo no free speech protection." Let's employ our higher cognitive functioning instead. - ran310, on 04/22/2009, -1/+4But who is going to define 'cruelty' .... Agreed that crushing a rabbit to death is probably easy to ban....
But what if someone makes a video of cows being slaughtered in a legal manner in a slaughter house ... Surely that cannot be illegal ... But it is definitely cruel ...
It is going to be interesting where the supreme court draws the line ....
If crushing cats is declared illegal, I don't see why stomping insects or videos of catching fish cannot be illegal too .... - askantik, on 04/22/2009, -0/+3How is it not cruel to kill an animal simply for food when we don't have to? I'm not trying to play the vegan ***** here-- it's a legitimate question.
And how exactly do you "humanely" take the life of a creature, especially one that has done no wrong? To treat someone humanely means to treat them as a human being, and it's usually not considered humane to kill anyone in any circumstance, not withstanding the death penalty (which, aside from being a whole other argument, is punishment for some transgression...) - CaptainCool53, on 04/22/2009, -0/+2You're missing the point. Our rights are derived from the liberty we're born with as humans. Unless you can explain to me why humans are born free and other animals are not, my point stands. Governments are instituted to protect natural (or God-given, if you must) liberties. I'm asking you why you believe this only applies to one species and not every species.
"you undermine the constitution and it’s meaning to MAN when you pollute it with anything other."
You're probably one of those people who believe that same-sex marriage threatens the entire institution of marriage, aren't you? - CaptainCool53, on 04/23/2009, -0/+2I don't intend to regulate the animals! I only want to protect them from the violence shown in these videos by recognizing their liberty.
- GovernmentsGun, on 04/21/2009, -1/+3Well evidently there is. There is a difference in the act, and a record of the act. I don't care either way. It doesn't cater to my tastes.
- pimpofpixels, on 04/22/2009, -1/+3Murders, Child Molesters, and Thieves, through their actions, hurt other people.
These people, who make these animal torture videos, are sick by my own definition, but their actions in no way hurt me unless i choose to watch them.
What I'm saying is that, unless someone's actions hurt or adversely effect the lives or livelihood of other people, they should be free to do what they like without threat of government intervention. - CaptainCool53, on 04/22/2009, -0/+2LIBERTIES are the ones afforded by God. I don't wish to try to allow other animals to have rights, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that earlier. I do wish, however, to recognize the natural (or God-given) liberty of all beings. The difference? Other animals may not vote, but they should also be free from the kind of victimization the films in question depict.
- CaptainCool53, on 04/22/2009, -0/+2I'll give him this: animals do not have full constitutional rights currently. But neither did blacks, women, etc. Why do we even have a court system if not to determine the full scope of liberty and ensure it is carried out?
- Niedar, on 04/22/2009, -0/+2Yea sure, to bad eye for an eye would entail you kill my dog i kill your dog not you kill my dog I kill you.
- BrownieMix, on 04/22/2009, -2/+4I think you have animal slaughter confused with animal cruelty.
Animals need to be used as food for both humans and animals. And for that reason Animal slaughter is OK and perfectly legal on many animals. Animal cruelty is not. Live stock needs to be taken well care of and needs to be killed in a quick humane way. - CaptainCool53, on 04/23/2009, -0/+2That is unregulated nature -- the epitome of liberty. The two aren't equal in ability or strength, but neither are humans.
- iwhitness, on 04/22/2009, -0/+2I completely agree! In my mind, this is akin to child pornography. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that child pornography is way worse and has worse and farther reaching repercussions. Allowing the sale of these videos, to me, is like allowing the sale of child pornography. Someone or something had to be severely hurt in order to make it. I don't think that media like this has any place in society. Allowing it as free speech is saying its ok to consume. As with child pornography, I think it should be illegal to produce and have possession of any of this material.
- CaptainCool53, on 04/22/2009, -0/+2"When animals develop thier own bill of rights, come talk to me. In the meantime please stop trying to undermine the Bill of rights & the constitution with your nonsense. Is this what they teach you in school now days?"
You're still missing the point completely. I'm arguing that the same mechanism which allows humans liberty, and consequently rights under governments, also gives the same for all other animals. Your refusal to accept that liberty is the natural state of all animals doesn't really have any bearing. This is what our entire system of governance is founded upon.
Furthermore, how could expanding the scope of liberty possibly be undermining the Bill of Rights? If anything, it enhances it. - pimpofpixels, on 04/22/2009, -1/+3And I think your confused to suggest that animals raised for slaughter are not treated cruelly.
The only difference really is that the animals in these videos are killed for fun rather than food.
You don't have to do a lot of reasearch to discover that the animals in our food industry have torturous miserable lives.
From that perspective, this whole outrage feels like hypocrisy. - CaptainCool53, on 04/22/2009, -0/+2Well rights certainly aren't.
Rights - afforded by government, don't exist without government. Voting, etc.
Liberties - freedom from government. Speech, etc.
If you're not born free, to whom are you enslaved?
EDIT: And whether you believe it or not, the founding fathers based the Constitution on the principle of everybody being born free and sacrificing some of their liberties for personal safety. - ThanatosST, on 04/22/2009, -1/+3You've never been to /b/, have you?
- CaptainCool53, on 04/22/2009, -0/+2Are you going to answer my question or not?
- askantik, on 04/22/2009, -0/+2@ran310:
The trouble is that many people become morally detached from any animal which is not a house pet. If it's not a cat or a dog (or sometimes a horse), it isn't as important. I know that we may say we feel closer to cats or dogs because of evolutionary reasons, but evolutionarily speaking, we were in close contact with cows, pigs, etc. (since we ate them) just as much as we were dogs and cats. The difference now is that most people have never touched a real cow, pig, or chicken (at least while it was alive)... So beef is a big piece of red meat wrapped in cellophane on a Styrofoam tray-- not the end result of slaughtering an animal that for all intents and purposes should be no less valuable to us than a cat or a dog...
To use a somewhat over-done but still meaningful and relevant quotation:
"The question is not 'Can they reason?' nor 'Can they talk?' but, 'Can they suffer?'"
-Jeremy Bentham, 1789 - GovernmentsGun, on 04/23/2009, -0/+1@ comfort
Maybe you have some kind of flimsy moral ideas that let you waffle on subjects just based on how you feel? I don't. I work through issues with consistency. Maybe that's why you don't understand it.
@ tehdriver
Anything from the government is based on the idea that what you earn belongs to them, and they will take it. If you disagree in anything other than opinion, they'll send you a nastygram, then confiscate your bank account directly, and if that doesn't work, they'll resort to sending people to your house who will shoot you if you don't cooperate. All in the name of money.
But I suppose you might have a hard time seeing that because usually the guns are well hidden behind the nicely worded letters and account confiscations. - inactive, on 04/22/2009, -1/+2Don't mind GovernmentsGuns..he just wants to be a little bitch.
Anyone who chooses THIS thread to be anti-government is clearly not interested in facts. Just bitching. - str3ama, on 04/22/2009, -2/+3need tougher laws on animal cruelty, it's the one area that still seems to not have changed as greatly as all other areas.
If these pricks can get away with that, than I'm going over to their house to steal their stuff and use the same rationale to defend it as "free expression". - Blashy, on 04/22/2009, -0/+1The death penalty, no death row is what these people should get.
- chesterogilvie, on 04/22/2009, -0/+1No, you punish the ACTION or the people doing the torturing. Punish crimes.
- inactive, on 04/22/2009, -1/+2free speech has NEVER applied to illegal activities you stupid *****.
- nomechingues, on 04/30/2009, -0/+1i would pay to see a video of these people being treated the way they treated the animals, i really would love to see that
-
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is