It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tapes of animal cruelty OK(Supreme court)

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I know I'm not the only one who is or will be upset by this. I'm sorry I can't attach a link but it's been on the news over the last 24hrs, so you should not have a problem finding it. The supreme court ruled banning tapes showing animal cruelty would infringe on free speech. I assume things depicted on a tape would be stuff like; staged animal fights, torture, animal sacrafice, and similar sick s%^t. Now I'm not a lawyer, thank God, but what seems very odd to me is that if those acts of perversion are illegal through out the country, and I think they are every where, woulden't it be illegal to tape it?. As a legal example, to be very blunt it's illegal to have sex with a child. It's also illegal to make a tape while you do. The court would call the tape evidence. Most of of us would call the person doing that a sick bastard. I use this as an example with the animal cruelty stuff because if one's illegal, IMO the other should be to.

I am well aware that freedom of speech is one of the major foundations of our nation, and among the most any people can have. I just don't see this as a free speech issue. To me this an issue of a lack of decent behaviour. That has nothing to do with the law. I don't care. I was told decency had gone out of style. I actually think thanks to the spread of communications, and our sharing of thoughts over the years, most of us have become more empathetic of others. But if I'm wrong, we need to get decency back.

This upset me a lot because I've always had a very strong connection with animals.
They are utterly honest. And when you get one they don't insist on a prenup. I respond to people who would want to hurt them with total disgust. But what I really feel is pity. Not having an emotional connection with any other species is to me a form a solitary confinement. You wont know who you are untill you see your soal through the eyes of another animal. Last, a very ominous point. Years ago my mother told me anyone who would hurt an animal on purpose will go out of their way to hurt a person. As in folklore, the scorpion that stings the turtle thats giving it a lift accross a river. It's his nature. Count on it.




posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Thinking on the other side of the issue, though, this also means that organizations like PETA can use videos of these abuses as a means to raise awareness. Silencing the issue by supressing video evidence can be dangerous.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
I know how you feel about people being mean to animals. I can't see how someone can do that to an animals. Where I live at there is a lot of animals that are abandoned and some of the animals won't let you come up to them, and others are just hungry for food or affection. Many people have animals who can barely afford to feed themselves.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Whoa !
I read the link, but I cannot see how attempting to criminalise and illegalise animal cruelty videos can in any way interfere with ''free speech'' laws !

Surely, owning, watching and being involved in any videos that involve cruelty and torture of animals should be considered in the same way as similar videos of children.

Or am I missing something ?



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Here's a link to a SFGate story about this decision. And from the bottom of the article:


UPDATE:

Today, Wednesday, April 21, Elton Gallegly, R-Calif., James Moran, D-Va., Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., and more than 50 other Representatives introduced H.R. 5092 in response to Tuesday's Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Stevens. According to the HSUS, "this narrowly-crafted statute is designed to end the intentional crushing, burning, drowning and impaling of puppies, kittens and other animals for the depraved purpose of peddling videos of such extreme acts of animal cruelty for the sexual titillation of viewers."


I hope the new legislation gets enough support to pass, and that it's language is narrow enough for the Supreme Court to uphold.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Things like this give me no hope for the human race.


Judges and politicians are all satanists and or psychopaths.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
Thinking on the other side of the issue, though, this also means that organizations like PETA can use videos of these abuses as a means to raise awareness. Silencing the issue by supressing video evidence can be dangerous.

You do raise a very good and important point. But, today? EVERY MOTHER f***** wants to get on UTUBE, FACE BOOK, and the news. One way of reinforcement of perverts. Deny them the f****** audience!! And go after them hard. If you have a more effective way, good God in heaven, tell us all. Your comments are both decent and dreadfully, logical. I apologize in not saying this sooner. Doing some "catch-up on my old homework".

Please respond, by private ATS direct communication if you wish.

Peace friend.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !
Surely, owning, watching and being involved in any videos that involve cruelty and torture of animals should be considered in the same way as similar videos of children.

Or am I missing something ?


Well said. I agree.


What does free speech have to do with with engaging in inhumane acts/torture? So, freedom-according to the supreme court- is the right to hurt and or condone hurt of living beings?

Since when did they want us to have free speech, or freedom, anyway? Nice excuse, sums it up that they really don't care about people or animals.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
But if it was illegal, I would be breaking the law filming my neighbour kicking his dog so it can be used to prove he is mis-treating the animal. Hypothetical situation, but that is why it can't be.




top topics



 
0

log in

join