From ASPCA: New, Improved Crush Act Introduced - Thoughts?

[Wylie's Mom]

ASPCA: Email - USA: New, Improved Crush Act Introduced--Let's Get It Passed!

Dear Animal Advocates,

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court declared an important federal anti-cruelty law known as the “Crush Act” (18 U.S. Code Section 48) unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. The Crush Act banned the creation, sale and possession of materials depicting genuine acts of animal cruelty where such acts are illegal. The Court made it clear that its major concern was the broadness of the law’s language, which could make the law applicable in many circumstances not intended by its authors.

While the ASPCA is disappointed with the Court’s decision, we are moving forward! Representative Elton Gallegly of California has acted quickly and introduced a bill to amend the law. H.R. 5092 will make the Crush Act’s language more specific and resolve the over-breadth concerns raised by the Supreme Court.

Passage of H.R. 5092 will help prevent a revitalization of the crush video industry. The original Crush Act was passed with little opposition—help us ensure that this revision passes, too.

What You Can Do
Please tell your U.S. representative that you support H.R. 5092, and that he or she should co-sponsor the bill and help move it quickly through the legislative process. Visit the ASPCA Advocacy Center online to email your representative now.

Thank you for helping us fight animal suffering and exploitation.

[bettyeanne]

I am glad they have gotten the new wording done so quickly! I sent emails to my appropriate representative and my email contacts! Thanks for posting this thread ... this is one of the sickest perversions I think I have ever heard of!!

[jencar98]

Thank you Ann for posting this - I filled out the form on the ASPCA site but will follow up with a personal e-mail to my reps. I had never heard of the "Crush" videos before this.....that is just sick, way beyond sick!!

It's a shame the original law wasn't upheld and this process has to start again!

[livingdustmops]

So very difficult to even think about...BUT...here is a way people can help. This one is a no brainer and I cannot fathom someone thinking this shouldn't be passed.

I also posted it on FB..

[Woogie Man]

Here's the text of the amended bill.

*********************************************

"A BILL

To amend section 48 (relating to depiction of animal cruelty) of title 18, United States Code, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ANIMAL CRUSH VIDEOS.

(a) In General- Section 48 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

‘Sec. 48. Animal crush videos

‘(a) Prohibition- Whoever knowingly sells or offers to sell an animal crush video in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

‘(b) Rule of Construction- Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed to prohibit the selling or offering to sell a video that depicts hunting.

‘(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

‘(B) taken as a whole, does not have religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value; and

‘(2) the term ‘State’ means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.’.

***********************************

Here's the link...

Read The Bill: H.R. 5092 - GovTrack.us

What's odd to me is that I see no mention of dog fighting videos....which is what prompted the Supreme Court decision that this amended bill is in response to.

[livingdustmops]

I am guessing because this was the original intent of the first pass of the law. Hopefully they will then come out with one for dog fighting..

Animal ?Crush Video? Law Voided by U.S. Supreme Court (Update2) - Bloomberg.com

[Nancy1999]

Thanks for the update!

[bettyeanne]

I have a question, albeit probably a stupid one, about this. Does this also cover making these videos or does it just prohibit selling or offering to sell the videos??


To amend section 48 (relating to depiction of animal cruelty) of title 18, United States Code, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ANIMAL CRUSH VIDEOS.

(a) In General- Section 48 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

‘Sec. 48. Animal crush videos

‘(a) Prohibition- Whoever knowingly sells or offers to sell an animal crush video in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by bettyeanne

I have a question, albeit probably a stupid one, about this. Does this also cover making these videos or does it just prohibit selling or offering to sell the videos??


To amend section 48 (relating to depiction of animal cruelty) of title 18, United States Code, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ANIMAL CRUSH VIDEOS.

(a) In General- Section 48 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

‘Sec. 48. Animal crush videos

‘(a) Prohibition- Whoever knowingly sells or offers to sell an animal crush video in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

I think it's a good question and it doesn't seem to be addressed in the bill. I know that, with the case before the court with the dog fight videos, it was speculated that the videos were made outside the U.S. (in Japan, where dog fighting is legal in some prefectures) and Stevens provided the voice-over. You would think that if it's illegal to sell something like this,it would be illegal to make it, too. But, if not directly addressed, it would seem to be a loophole.

[jencar98]

Originally Posted by bettyeanne

I have a question, albeit probably a stupid one, about this. Does this also cover making these videos or does it just prohibit selling or offering to sell the videos??


To amend section 48 (relating to depiction of animal cruelty) of title 18, United States Code, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ANIMAL CRUSH VIDEOS.

(a) In General- Section 48 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

‘Sec. 48. Animal crush videos

‘(a) Prohibition- Whoever knowingly sells or offers to sell an animal crush video in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

I think it's a good question and it doesn't seem to be addressed in the bill. I know that, with the case before the court with the dog fight videos, it was speculated that the videos were made outside the U.S. (in Japan, where dog fighting is legal in some prefectures) and Stevens provided the voice-over. You would think that if it's illegal to sell something like this,it would be illegal to make it, too. But, if not directly addressed, it would seem to be a loophole.

The making of a video with this content would probably fall under existing animal cruelty laws?

[TLC]

Thanks, yet another f-up'd thing going on in this world...who thinks of these things...oh yeah, the pure evil people, may they rot in hell

[livingdustmops]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

I think it's a good question and it doesn't seem to be addressed in the bill. I know that, with the case before the court with the dog fight videos, it was speculated that the videos were made outside the U.S. (in Japan, where dog fighting is legal in some prefectures) and Stevens provided the voice-over. You would think that if it's illegal to sell something like this,it would be illegal to make it, too. But, if not directly addressed, it would seem to be a loophole.

Probably is just like drugs and the amount...personal use...but I am just guessing, I don't know....Sick.

I don't understand why evil has good lawmakers and good has ok lawmakers.

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by livingdustmops

Probably is just like drugs and the amount...personal use...but I am just guessing, I don't know....Sick.

I don't understand why evil has good lawmakers and good has ok lawmakers.

IDK....maybe it should be looked at more like child porn....zero tolerance. It just seems like this bill needs some tweaking and it would be best to do it before being voted on. Why pass a bill KNOWING that it will have to be re-visited? I don't want to be too critical because the intent of the bill is a good thing, but maybe a little too hastily prepared.

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by jencar98

The making of a video with this content would probably fall under existing animal cruelty laws?

I would think so if someone was caught in the act. But, what if they weren't but authorities found out later who made the video? I don't think cruelty laws would cover that. It could be argued that the maker of the video didn't actively participate in the cruelty.

[hartygirl]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

ASPCA: Email - USA: New, Improved Crush Act Introduced--Let's Get It Passed!

Dear Animal Advocates,

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court declared an important federal anti-cruelty law known as the “Crush Act” (18 U.S. Code Section 48) unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. The Crush Act banned the creation, sale and possession of materials depicting genuine acts of animal cruelty where such acts are illegal. The Court made it clear that its major concern was the broadness of the law’s language, which could make the law applicable in many circumstances not intended by its authors.

While the ASPCA is disappointed with the Court’s decision, we are moving forward! Representative Elton Gallegly of California has acted quickly and introduced a bill to amend the law. H.R. 5092 will make the Crush Act’s language more specific and resolve the over-breadth concerns raised by the Supreme Court.

Passage of H.R. 5092 will help prevent a revitalization of the crush video industry. The original Crush Act was passed with little opposition—help us ensure that this revision passes, too.

What You Can Do
Please tell your U.S. representative that you support H.R. 5092, and that he or she should co-sponsor the bill and help move it quickly through the legislative process. Visit the ASPCA Advocacy Center online to email your representative now.

Thank you for helping us fight animal suffering and exploitation.

Thanks for the heads up Ann ~