Ron Paul votes to squish small animals

[Anarchist420]

No I don't, I guess you don't know the first and 10th Amendments. Just as prosecutions for murder were to be left up to the states, so is prosecutions for animal cruelty. The Constitution gives a 10th Amendment + specifies 3 Federal crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy.

 

[CanOWorms]

This is actually the response to a recent Supreme Court case, United States v. Stephens, which struck down another law originally meant to target crush videos but written too broadly.

It's still reasonable to say that this has constitutional issues, but it's in a much better position.

 

[Schadenfroh]

While I find the production and distribution of videos involving animal cruelty despicable, this should be handled at the state level, IMO.

 

[lothar]

So they voted that PETA cannot make videos of animals being slaughtered on their website so long as they have ads on their site that generate income?

Oh Snap!

This law deals with the distribution or sale of abuse videos, not their creation.

So if I posted a YouTube video of someone torturing their cat, I'm breaking the law?

What if I were to make a YouTube video of me crushing an earthworm or pouring table salt on top of the slugs that come out on our patio/garden at night and showed a video of them squirming?

What if I made a Video of me using a magnifying glass and the sun's energy to kill an insect?

Does the bill include any films involving how most of us get our meat at the grocery store?
Seriously, though, there are several studies that show that it's very common for homocidal maniac serial killers to have abused animals as children. Regulate it like video games or X-rated movies to keep young impressionable minds from thinking that it is acceptable behavior. I'm really torn on this though because I hate any form of censorship.

Do you truely believe regulation of the examples you cite works?
I've bought Duke Nukem(a M+ rated game) in 1998 before I turned 14. Don't forget to add Doom, Quake, Unreal, Half-Life, Alien vs Predator, and all FPS games to the list.
Does Amazon ask for your license when you order a M+ rated game like Grand Theft Auto off their website? Does eBay? Heck, even the normal stores(Gamestop, EB Games, etc...) don't follow that.

How hard is it to buy a ticket for Toy Story and sneak in to see American Pie being shown next door?

Do you truly believe that takes much effort?

 

[lothar]

Ron Paul and I rarely see eye to eye on most issues, but he voted the correct way on this issue.

 

[First]

That same old tired fallacy that being against handouts means you shouldn't take them when they're given to you. Debunked so many times, it's silly to even argue with you. Carry on, bitch.

Hey, you criticize a policy you actively use and depend on, you're going to get called out on that bullshit. That's just how it's always going to be, old timer.

 

[Anarchist420]

While I find the production and distribution of videos involving animal cruelty despicable, this should be handled at the state level, IMO.

I agree.

 

[Cogman]

Wow, I'm with Paul on this one. This is a STUPID bill.

I have nothing against making it illegal to mistreat animals (which it already is). However, this bill essentially makes it illegal to film someone doing such an act. In other words, It makes it illegal to whistle blow on corporate mistreatment of animals.

Dumb, Dumb bill.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Anarchist420

There has been a Federal death penalty since 1994. There are a number of murderers currently under Federal death sentences. The States are not the only ones that can prosecute for murder.

Please explain how the 1st Amendment gives anyone the right to profit from their own crimes. Just as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not protected free speech, committing crimes for profit should find no protections either by any reasonable interpretation of the Amendment.

 

[Cogman]

Anarchist420

There has been a Federal death penalty since 1994. There are a number of murderers currently under Federal death sentences. The States are not the only ones that can prosecute for murder.

Please explain how the 1st Amendment gives anyone the right to profit from their own crimes. Just as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not protected free speech, committing crimes for profit should find no protections either by any reasonable interpretation of the Amendment.

Do you think a video like this should be illegal?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ--faib7to&feature=player_embedded

 

[lothar]

Do you think a video like this should be illegal?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ--faib7to&feature=player_embedded

Interesting...I see that they're accepting donations of $5, $15, $25, $50, or $100 through Google Checkout.

You also should be fined(and possibly even jailed) for posting and distributing such a link here.

 

[Sclamoz]

Do you think a video like this should be illegal?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ--faib7to&feature=player_embedded

The bill does not prohibit the sale, distribution, or offer for sale or distribution, of any visual depiction of customary and normal veterinary or agricultural husbandry practices; or hunting, trapping, or fishing.

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

http://www.gop.gov/bill/111/2/hr5566

 

[Cogman]

http://www.gop.gov/bill/111/2/hr5566

Oh great, so the bill is completely worthless.

"Yep, this was for art."

 

[Sclamoz]

Oh great, so the bill is completely worthless.

"Yep, this was for art."

I don't think that will work or pedos would be able to make child porn without issue. Why is it at first you're outraged the law goes to far and then you're outraged it's worthless?

 

[lothar]

I don't think that will work or pedos would be able to make child porn without issue. Why is it at first you're outraged the law goes to far and then you're outraged it's worthless?

Can you show us an exception in child pornography law for "art"?
Show us a bill(or the law itself) that has "art" as an exception.

and also, be sure to dig up religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, and historical exceptions while you're at it.

 

[Cogman]

I don't think that will work or pedos would be able to make child porn without issue. Why is it at first you're outraged the law goes to far and then you're outraged it's worthless?

Before I knew about the exceptions. I didn't like the fact that there are legitimate filmings of animal crushing. After I learned about the exceptions, I don't like the fact that a bill was made that is completely worthless. Why? Because now we have a law that nobody will know how to properly enforce. Worthless paper that just keeps congress from doing something useful.

AFAIK, there is no "artistic value" clause for pedo porn distribution.

 

[Kappo]

nm

 

[jackschmittusa]

Cogman

The vid in your link was not produced for profit by people torturing or killing domestic animals for fun and games.

It is also obvious that it falls under the journalism exception.

Your point has no merit as it pertains to the law.

And as for "art", you would have to have severely limited mental abilities not to realize that free expression is not without boundaries already and that the topic under discussion would not be protected. Again, no merit.

edit:

Just because you might not be bright enough to figure out how to enforce the law, does not mean the people empowered to enforce law will be unlikely to figure it out.

 

[Cogman]

Cogman

The vid in your link was not produced for profit by people torturing or killing domestic animals for fun and games.

It is also obvious that it falls under the journalism exception.

Your point has no merit as it pertains to the law.

And as for "art", you would have to have severely limited mental abilities not to realize that free expression is not without boundaries already and that the topic under discussion would not be protected. Again, no merit.

"Art" is a VERY loose term. You would have to have severely limited mental abilities not to realize that. Think about what goes on in art, literally EVERYTHING. It isn't "free expression" if there are boundaries.

It has full merit as it pertains to a specific exemption to the law. Laws written with very loose and ill defined exceptions usually become worthless.

edit:
Just because you aren't bright enough to figure out how to argue without personal insults, doesn't mean that the law is any less broken. All it takes is one lawyer to argue that "My client was practicing art" in a trial, and this law becomes worthless.

Why on earth did they even include an art section?

 

[Sclamoz]

Can you show us an exception in child pornography law for "art"?
Show us a bill(or the law itself) that has "art" as an exception.

and also, be sure to dig up religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, and historical exceptions while you're at it.

I don't know what laws apply to child porn and I'm not googling for them either. I've heard of cases of parents getting investigated but not arrested for getting photos developed of their kids naked in non-sexual contexts. I'm sure it's legal for medical books for show naked underage kids for instance. I think it's the context that's important, it has to be obscene so there might be legitimate cases of nudity that would be art and legal. Just like what the crush law is trying to do.

Why on earth did they even include an art section?

The exceptions are pre-existing from the animal cruelty law that the crush bill is being amended to. The reason they are there is so ignorant people can't bitch about not being able to make documentaries about animal cruelty and the like.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

"Art" is a VERY loose term. You would have to have severely limited mental abilities not to realize that. Think about what goes on in art, literally EVERYTHING. It isn't "free expression" if there are boundaries.

It has full merit as it pertains to a specific exemption to the law. Laws written with very loose and ill defined exceptions usually become worthless.

edit:
Just because you aren't bright enough to figure out how to argue without personal insults, doesn't mean that the law is any less broken. All it takes is one lawyer to argue that "My client was practicing art" in a trial, and this law becomes worthless.

Why on earth did they even include an art section?

Are you brain damaged? Serious question.

 

[Cogman]

Are you brain damaged? Serious question.

Are you? Seriously...

"journalistic" and "educational" Seem to cover the grounds enough to cover a documentary being shot on animal cruelty without opening up the possibility for sick fun being shot and passed off as art.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Are you? Seriously...

"journalistic" and "educational" Seem to cover the grounds enough to cover a documentary being shot on animal cruelty without opening up the possibility for sick fun being shot and passed off as art.

I see you are brain damaged. I'm sorry to hear that

 

[lothar]

Cogman

The vid in your link was not produced for profit by people torturing or killing domestic animals for fun and games.

It is also obvious that it falls under the journalism exception.

But it was uploaded and distributed for profit.
The organization that uploaded the video is soliciting donations.

 

[Cogman]

I see you are brain damaged. I'm sorry to hear that

I see you are a brain dead asshole that doesn't know how to debate. Sorry to hear that