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

[livingdustmops]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

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.

I agree with you and am confused why so many bad bills are presented and can't possibly pass...then again we have 3000 pg bills that no one can read or understand that are voted on...maybe they need to be long and complicated...shaking my head...and you know I am not serious.

[Woogie Man]

At least the big bills keep the paper mills busy LOL.

Ann asked for thoughts on this and I would say my thought is 'nice try with the bill, but I'm not ready to jump on the bandwagon'....at least not in its present form.

[red98vett]

Originally Posted by 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

[bettyeanne]

Thank you all for your replies. It just seemed to me that addressing the "root" of the problem and also selling/distribution would make more sense. Regardless, I support this as it certainly beats a blank in trying to address these sick people and those who support them. Yes, it does seem to have "loopholes" but if this all we can get, I think we should take it.

[Woogie Man]

Here's the text of the original law that was struck down by the Supreme Court.

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

In 1999, Public Law 106-152 (Title 18, Section 48) was enacted. This Federal legislation makes it a felony to create, sell, or possess videos depicting animal cruelty with the intention of profiting financially from them.

18 USC 48 / PUBLIC LAW 106-152

Sec. 48. - Depiction of animal cruelty
(a) Creation, Sale, or Possession.
Whoever knowingly creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(b) Exception.
Subsection (a) does not apply to any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.

(c) Definitions.
In this section
(1) the term ''depiction of animal cruelty'' means any visual or auditory depiction, including any photograph, motion-picture film, video recording, electronic image, or sound recording of conduct in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed, if such conduct is illegal under Federal law or the law of the State in which the creation, sale, or possession takes place, regardless of whether the maiming, mutilation, torture, wounding, or killing took place in the State; 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

Read more: Pet-Abuse.Com - Stopping Crush Videos Pet-Abuse.Com - Stopping Crush Videos

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

I honestly don't see what was wrong with the original law. In my reading, it made illegal the recording of activities that was already illegal. It didn't break any new ground in making something previously legal thus illegal under the law....only to extend to recording that activity for commercial gain.

I suppose I could see why the new bill is worded the way it is since Justice Roberts suggested a law limited to crush video may hold up. Maybe I'm more against the Court's ruling and the fact that laws have to be worded to satisfy their odd sense of constitutionality. There are other forms of animal cruelty beyond crush videos that are already illegal. Do legislators now have to write a separate law for each specific type to satisfy the court?

Pass the aspirin my way. Now I've got a headache!

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

Pass the aspirin my way. Now I've got a headache!

I'm as confused as you are . When you're done w/ the aspirin bottle, pass it my way.

[livingdustmops]

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

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal criminal law aimed at depictions of animal cruelty, saying the measure was so broad it would have outlawed hunting videos and magazines in violation of free-speech rights.
Please read...are they striking down the original law?

Now read the following from one of the largest hunting organizations.

Safari Club International - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Safari Club International is an international organization composed of hunters. SCI has more than 50,000 members and 180 local chapters.[1]
Safari Club International Foundation, the 501 (c) 3 branch of SCI, funds and manages worldwide programs dedicated to wildlife conservation, outdoor education and humanitarian services.[2]
Political lobbying
In 1979, when SCI was fairly new, it sought government approval to import 1,125 trophies from 40 different species (gorillas, cheetahs, tigers, orangutans, snow leopards, and others) into the US for "scientific research and incentive for propagation and survival of the species." Because the animals were to be hunted, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service denied the request.[19]
Since that time, SCI has had more successes.[citation needed]
Polar bear imports
In 1994, SCI successfully lobbied for a change in the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act 1972 to allow for the importation of previously banned sport-hunted polar bear trophies into the United States from Canada.[20] In 2007, SCI testified at a U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service hearing opposing the proposed listing of polar bears as a "threatened" species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. The FWS is concerned that climate change is or will place polar bears at risk of extinction.[21] SCI/SCIF argued that the science cited by the FWS speculative and incomplete at this time. Relatively healthy populations of polar bears exist in the areas where hunting is allowed and it said that sport hunting of these populations would provide funding for habitat and study as well as income for native populations. SCI stated that, "[...] [T]he U.S. decision to list will merely change the identity of those who hunt the animals from U.S. hunters to exclusively native residents[...]"[22]
Criticism
Endangered species
SCI has been criticised by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) for supporting the hunting of endangered African antelope species at fenced "game" ranches in Texas and Florida and for giving awards for the hunting of big cats and leopard, elephant, lion, rhino and buffalo in Africa.[23]
SCI counters that hunting can be an integral part of management of these species and provides needed funds for habitat preservation and enhancement.[24][25] SCI, along with other hunting and non-hunting organizations, intervened in a federal suit where HSUS challenged regulations that allow hunting of captive scimitar-horned oryx, dama gazelle and addax. The U.S. FWS found that, “[c]aptive breeding in the United States has enhanced the propagation or survival of the scimitar-horned oryx, addax, and dama gazelle worldwide by rescuing these species from near extinctions and providing the founder stock necessary for reintroduction. Sport hunting of surplus, captive-bred animals generates revenue that supports these captive-breeding operations and may relieve hunting pressure on wild populations.”[26] As of February 2008, this case is still pending.[27] In the case of black rhino, 83% of those countries represented at the 2004 CITES meeting approved sport hunting of the species in very limited numbers.[28]
Promoting questionable tax deductions
In 2005, controversy erupted over tax write-offs taken by big game hunters for donations of trophies to museums. IRS rules allowed only the fair market value of such donations to be deducted, but many donors filed returns claiming deductions at "replacement cost," calculated to include airfare, guide fees, taxidermy, shipping, permits, and all other costs associated with the original hunt.[29] In most cases, the donations were worth only a fraction of the claimed value, and often accumulated in museum storage facilities.[30]
The tax code was amended in 2006 by the United States Congress. Current law allows for the deduction of either the market value of the trophy or taxidermy costs, whichever is less.[31] The IRS code also now specifically prohibits deducting "direct or indirect costs for hunting or killing an animal, such as equipment costs and the costs of preparing an animal carcass for taxidermy".
Revenue sources
For the tax year ending June 2006, SCI reported $2.87 million in revenue from SCI publications, $3.17 million in membership dues, $205,967 in interest on savings and temporary investments, $75,771 from sales of assets other than inventory, $6.86 million from special events such as the annual convention, $156,014 from sales of inventory, and $6,089 miscellaneous income.[33]
In 2007, the New York legislature earmarked $50,000 of public funds for SCI.[34]

[Woogie Man]

Oh, I need that aspirin bottle back, Ann...Cindy posted

Cindy, what point are you making? Is it that a lobbying group (SCI) is involved? I see in the re-worked bill the expressed exception to hunting videos, but I think that's due to the court using D.C. as a reason for striking the law down. The following is from the Bloomberg link you posted.

"Roberts faulted the law for criminalizing depictions of conduct that is illegal in only a single jurisdiction. He pointed to the ban on hunting in the District of Columbia."

In the abstract I can understand the statement, but in reality D.C. is an urban area where hunting would, of course, be illegal. Hunting is also illegal in my town...geez... It looks like they were trying to find something to hang their hat on to strike down the law.

I'm not sure if they're striking down the original law or only its application in the Stevens case. It seems like the new revision would replace the old one rather that just add to it for clarification.

I should just bow out of this one. My head is spinning

[Woogie Man]

I just couldn't leave this without posting the text of the Court's opinion. Anyone for some light reading?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf

Justice Alito's dissenting opinion is just a little less than halfway down.

The NRA had a hand in this decision.

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

"The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal animal-cruelty law that was so broadly written it could criminalize the distribution of hunting videos and magazines under many circumstances. The 8-1 ruling in U.S. v. Stevens is a big win for the National Rifle Association and hunters across America. A brief submitted by the NRA was cited in the majority’s opinion."

Also.....

"Recognizing how U.S. v. Stevens jeopardized the rights of all hunters to share images of their sport, as well as the hunting-media industry in which it is a major presence, NRA forcefully weighed in with amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief, prepared and filed by the law firm of Hunton & Williams."

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

From this link...

Hunting Magazines and Shows to Remain Legal

[livingdustmops]

I knew it...NRA...I figured some lobbyist was behind the issues..

Follow the $$$ and self-interest groups.

American Humane Association: Cruelty to Animals Is NOT Free Speech or Entertainment

American Humane?s Blog

April 20 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal criminal law aimed at depictions of animal cruelty, saying the measure was so broad it would have outlawed hunting videos and magazines in violation of free-speech rights.
The high court, voting 8-1, overturned the conviction of a Virginia man for selling videos of pit bulls fighting each other and attacking other animals.

Congress passed the law to target “crush videos,” in which women stomp on small animals with their feet in a manner that some people find sexually arousing.
The man challenging the law, Robert J. Stevens, describes himself as a book author and documentary film producer who specializes in promoting pit bulls.
Stevens says his small business sells educational material about the breed, including a video that documents the use of pit bulls to help hunters catch prey. The video shows a pit bull fight in Japan, a scene that Stevens says is used to distinguish dogs trained for hunting from those trained for fighting.

P.S. See what I made you do (along with myself)...find out who is behind these issues...

[Woogie Man]

Well, I think all of us were just reacting to the news at first. It was a head-scratcher to try to see the logic behind it. It gets a little clearer with some digging. In my mind, the NRA was acting as nothing more than a lobbyist to the Supreme Court, which is supposed to be immune from outside influence. I'm not shocked by it happening, only by how much crowing the NRA is doing about it. I came upon the info by doing 'John Roberts hunting' in a google search. Lots of stuff is there.

This just goes to show what animal advocacy groups are up against on the national level.

[livingdustmops]

I agree Jim....and why it takes millions of dollars to fight them. I really should have thought of NRA right away because they have their hand in a lot of things within our government because of the "right to bear arms".

I just think when these things come up we have to follow the $$$...this is another case in point. This is not a political discussion but I think what is going on in Washington (has been going on for a long time) is totally out of control because we wanted to believe in their integrity and ethics..sadly it is proven everyday the American public is giving up their freedoms to greed.

[QuickSilver]

I certainly believe the court has made some politically motivated decisions. However, my feeling is that an 8-1 vote probably indicates that the law was unsound.

While I do not engage in it myself, I am not anti-hunting. If I didn't eat meat or wear leather, maybe I would be, but my feeling is that by engaging in these activities, I support animal slaughter. Hunters are just closer to what the actual activity is. If anything, I consider that more respectful, as long as they actually harvest the meat.

I am completely against dog fighting, and I'm sure some methods of hunting constitute cruelty. However, I agree that a precise law should be passed.