Answered Conundrum Next Conundrum
Do you think animal cruelty videos should fall under the same laws as child pornography?
An AFP article titled, "US high court weighs dog fight video vs free speech", reports that the Supreme Court is considering this issue and could make a decision within a couple of weeks. Do you think they should be treated the same? Do you think that people publishing animal cruelty videos should be punished the same as those producing child pornography?
The article can be read at: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jh1HZq87xjAlEcmFEMs5tiavjZVQ
Interesting Question?
Yes (0)
No (0)
The article can be read at: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jh1HZq87xjAlEcmFEMs5tiavjZVQ
- In Belief and Thought |
- |
- Report |
-
Share
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
Marked as Best!
October 07, 2009 10:49 AM
Helpful Answer?
(3)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
I think that animal cruelty videos should fall under the same laws as Hate Crimes, not porn. Animals aren't people no matter how strongly people feel about their pets. When you start giving human rights to animals you only open the door for even stranger and more bizarre interpretations of the law.
What people do to other people without their consent is the worst of crimes. What people do (and allow done) to animals may reveal more than we'd like to admit.
What people do to other people without their consent is the worst of crimes. What people do (and allow done) to animals may reveal more than we'd like to admit.
| Asker's Rating: |
(3)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
Other Answers (7)
October 07, 2009 08:56 AM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
While I applaud the effort to carry a harsher punishment for videos of animal cruelty, it isn't quite on the same level as child pornography. People make profit off the rape and sexual abuse of children, and the psychological damage of it can potentially ruin that child's future life. While animals don't deserve to be abused for the sake of profit or entertainment, they're not as evolved as humans are, and putting the abuse of an animal as child pornography only makes child pornography seem more socially acceptable.
Helpful Answer?
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
October 07, 2009 03:12 PM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
I believe so because they are making a profit off of it, just like child pornography, and it is causing the torture of other animals, just like child pornography promotes the rape and molestation of children. Both are heinous crimes. Worst of all, children sometimes have access to the animal cruelty videos on the internet and sometimes try to copy what the videos do.
For example, Snopes.com has a slideshow in their gruesome section of a kitten being stomped to death. They even say they don't know if it is real or not, but it doesn't matter. A kid seeing that may decide that it looks cool and try it himself. I wrote a letter personally to Snopes trying to get them to pull it, but as far as I know, they haven't.
Helpful Answer?
For example, Snopes.com has a slideshow in their gruesome section of a kitten being stomped to death. They even say they don't know if it is real or not, but it doesn't matter. A kid seeing that may decide that it looks cool and try it himself. I wrote a letter personally to Snopes trying to get them to pull it, but as far as I know, they haven't.
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
October 07, 2009 06:22 PM
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
I am not a lawyer.
But this is a First Amendment issue, and child pornography isn't protected not due to obscenity, but because it constitutes not speech but an action -- in this case, the rape of a child. Child pornography cannot exist without such an action taking place.
Using that line of reasoning, I think it's quite reasonable -- although I haven't studied it much and my opinion could change -- to argue that videos of animal cruelty constitute an action.
Helpful Answer?
But this is a First Amendment issue, and child pornography isn't protected not due to obscenity, but because it constitutes not speech but an action -- in this case, the rape of a child. Child pornography cannot exist without such an action taking place.
Using that line of reasoning, I think it's quite reasonable -- although I haven't studied it much and my opinion could change -- to argue that videos of animal cruelty constitute an action.
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
October 07, 2009 08:27 PM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
I believe that if animal cruelty videos are released as an educational tool, they should not be censored. For the same reason Oprah is allowed to air stories about a seven year old girl with extreme Schizophrenia, or programs that showcase fat people doing fat things, animal cruelty videos should be released for their 'shock value'. The idea is that if grade school kids could watch videos of dogfights or cats being kicked around, they might be less likely to participate in those activities themselves.
However, if some random moron uploads a clip of himself throwing his pets around or feeding them poisons or something, then NO. Get that crap off the air, because it promotes violence instead of prevents it, in my opinion.
Helpful Answer?
However, if some random moron uploads a clip of himself throwing his pets around or feeding them poisons or something, then NO. Get that crap off the air, because it promotes violence instead of prevents it, in my opinion.
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
October 08, 2009 12:59 AM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Just how we protect our children from predators. We shall protect our planet other species as well, just because they are not from human species we get to treat them different. These animals what makes our planet t o thrive without them we will gradually disappear as well if we don't stop the cruelty or the killing of endanger species.
Helpful Answer?
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
keepontryi...
safiqulisl...
View my nomination here answer-of-the-day-contest-for-october-8-th
Good job.
shadowbear
I agree