Petition banning "Crush" videos

Discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users.
Forum rules
General Discussion is a bonus forum for discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users. All site rules apply.
User avatar
BucsFan
Registered User
Posts: 253
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:41 pm

Petition banning "Crush" videos

Post by BucsFan » Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:51 pm

Apparently some sickos think its cool to crush kittens, puppies and other small animals to death with their feet on video and post it on the web. In 1999, the US government banned the depiction of animal cruelty, however the law was overturned by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled that these films were protected as free speech.


Please follow the link and help out with this cause by signing the petition.
http://www.petitiononline.com/bancrush/petition.html

User avatar
god0fgod
Registered User
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Petition banning "Crush" videos

Post by god0fgod » Fri Sep 04, 2009 3:52 pm

It's legal to murder such animals in the US? The videos don't need to be banned, the entire suffering and murder must be.

User avatar
Tom
Former Team Member
Posts: 2665
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:12 am
Name: Tom Catullo
Contact:

Re: Petition banning "Crush" videos

Post by Tom » Fri Sep 04, 2009 4:03 pm

Well, maybe Michael Vick can help to push forward with the movement to eliminate animal cruelty in the United States. ;)
Tom Catullo - Former Moderator Team Member
phpBB3 Smiley Pak Generator | Legend Repositioning MOD | My GitHub | My Site

User avatar
Techie-Micheal
Security Consultant
Posts: 19511
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 12:11 am
Location: In your servers

Re: Petition banning "Crush" videos

Post by Techie-Micheal » Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:41 pm

god0fgod wrote:It's legal to murder such animals in the US? The videos don't need to be banned, the entire suffering and murder must be.
Of course it isn't. That's why it is under animal cruelty.
Proven Offensive Security Expertise. OSCP - GXPN

User avatar
Sam
Former Team Member
Posts: 2082
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:59 am
Location: Sacramento, CA
Name: Sam Thompson
Contact:

Re: Petition banning "Crush" videos

Post by Sam » Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:54 pm

I don't think banning "Crush" videos would be the answer to this, stopping the killing of animals and such needs to be dealt with, however, and I would be surprised if there are not measure put in place to do this. The internet should not see this type of censorship, whats to stop further "I don't want to see..." on the internet? Pretty soon the internet will become as neutral as the pre-1990 Soviet Union.

Kim_Possible
Registered User
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 3:57 pm

Re: Petition banning "Crush" videos

Post by Kim_Possible » Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:39 pm

That's exactly what makes this a difficult issue for me.

I can completely understand people who want "puppy stomping" to be illegal. I have a harder time understanding why recording such a crime would be a crime by itself (though I do understand the points that are made and agree with many of them). I have an even harder time understanding why owning or hosting or making available to the public a recording of such a crime would be illegal. And I have an even harder time understanding why viewing a hosted version of a record of such a crime should be illegal.

It's the "slope" that bothers me, I guess. Seems I've been living with a Libertarian for far too long. :lol:

User avatar
god0fgod
Registered User
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Petition banning "Crush" videos

Post by god0fgod » Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:33 pm

Techie-Micheal wrote:
god0fgod wrote:It's legal to murder such animals in the US? The videos don't need to be banned, the entire suffering and murder must be.
Of course it isn't. That's why it is under animal cruelty.
Then what is this topic for? According to this topic and everything I've read, the US has almost no Animal Welfare laws. It has an Animal Welfare Act but thats a pathetic law only relating to using animals for experimentation, apparently. It's insane.

User avatar
Techie-Micheal
Security Consultant
Posts: 19511
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 12:11 am
Location: In your servers

Re: Petition banning "Crush" videos

Post by Techie-Micheal » Sat Sep 05, 2009 12:26 am

god0fgod wrote:
Techie-Micheal wrote:
god0fgod wrote:It's legal to murder such animals in the US? The videos don't need to be banned, the entire suffering and murder must be.
Of course it isn't. That's why it is under animal cruelty.
Then what is this topic for? According to this topic and everything I've read, the US has almost no Animal Welfare laws. It has an Animal Welfare Act but thats a pathetic law only relating to using animals for experimentation, apparently. It's insane.
No, there's other laws pertaining to animal abuse. While I agree it could be better, there's a reason Michael Vick was arrested and charged with animal cruelty. ;)
Proven Offensive Security Expertise. OSCP - GXPN

Kim_Possible
Registered User
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 3:57 pm

Re: Petition banning "Crush" videos

Post by Kim_Possible » Sat Sep 05, 2009 12:39 am

god0fgod wrote:Then what is this topic for? According to this topic and everything I've read, the US has almost no Animal Welfare laws. It has an Animal Welfare Act but thats a pathetic law only relating to using animals for experimentation, apparently. It's insane.
And this topic isn't about animal cruelty. It's about whether depictions of animal cruelty should be illegal in addition to the cruel act itself (which is already illegal) or whether such depictions are protected speech.

-Techie-Micheal stomps a puppy to death - Illegal in the U.S.

-god0god films it (and does nothing else to participate in the puppy's death) - People have been prosecuted for this, but there is some "freedom of speech" backlash against those prosecutions.

-Kim_Possible hosts the video on her website - What should happen to her? Should that be a crime, even though she didn't kill the animal nor was she there to film it? Some think so (e.g. PETA and the ASPCA).

-SyntaxError90 downloads the video from Kim's site and keeps it on his computer's hard drive. If making the video should be illegal and hosting it should be illegal, should viewing it be illegal also? A good question.

That is what this topic is about. ;) And they are very difficult questions, at least for me.

narqelion
I've Been Banned!
Posts: 7235
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Petition banning "Crush" videos

Post by narqelion » Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:30 am

Kim_Possible wrote:-Techie-Micheal stomps a puppy to death - Illegal in the U.S.
Unfortunately not illegal enough because Michael Vick is out of prison already and back on the field. Hopefully cosmic justice will rear it's head and the pounding he took from the Jets will continue throughout the season until he finally gets what's coming to him. ;)
Kim_Possible wrote:-god0god films it (and does nothing else to participate in the puppy's death) - People have been prosecuted for this, but there is some "freedom of speech" backlash against those prosecutions.
In my state (and the laws do vary from state to state sadly) any prosecutor with a brain would nail them as accessories or even conspirators.
Kim_Possible wrote:-Kim_Possible hosts the video on her website - What should happen to her? Should that be a crime, even though she didn't kill the animal nor was she there to film it? Some think so (e.g. PETA and the ASPCA).
If the video was of an 18 month old toddler getting crushed and killed would that be illegal? Do you think filming a criminal act for the purpose of commercial distribution should be legal? If the video was child pornography the issue has already been defined. How is the depiction of a crime for the purpose of distribution only illegal when it comes to child pornography but not for other crimes? I believe the appellate court was wrong and the Supreme Court has this on it's docket for October.
Kim_Possible wrote:-SyntaxError90 downloads the video from Kim's site and keeps it on his computer's hard drive. If making the video should be illegal and hosting it should be illegal, should viewing it be illegal also? A good question.
Why should it be considered any differently than the current definition of child pornography? If it's illegal to film, illegal to host & distribute it would follow that it would be illegal to view. All of those acts contribute either directly or indirectly to an illegal industry.

User avatar
god0fgod
Registered User
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Petition banning "Crush" videos

Post by god0fgod » Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:39 pm

Oh right so this applies to the people who film it and not the people who do the act. Of-course that should be illegal to.

Kim_Possible
Registered User
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 3:57 pm

Re: Petition banning "Crush" videos

Post by Kim_Possible » Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:20 pm

god0fgod wrote:Oh right so this applies to the people who film it and not the people who do the act. Of-course that should be illegal to.
Before I would agree to something like that, I would want to know just how this law might shake out.

1. Just to whom would the prohibition against making a recording of a crime apply? Obviously not law enforcement agencies (we still want to be able to watch America's Scariest Police Videos ;) ). But what about news agencies? I was reading an international blog just this morning that was hosting a video of an awful "honor killing" in Afghanistan (which I didn't watch) to bring attention to the issue. Should making, hosting, and/or watching such a video be a crime? What about video that was made of the World Trade Tower "bombings." Are the people who made videos of that horrific, horrific crime complicit in the furtherance of a criminal act? And if you want to also give news agencies a pass, who gets to decide who is a "legitimate" news agency and who isn't?

2. If intent will play a role in the prosecution of this crime, whose intent matters? In the honor killing video mentioned above, the video was made by the Taliban to demonstrate their triumph of righteousness. That is certainly not the intent of the person hosting the video, nor the disposition of the people who read and contribute to that blog. What if PETA (who loves to shock) wanted to host a video of puppy stomping on their website to shock and horrify the public into action? Would their "good" intentions make their hosting of the video not a crime while a sadistic teen who hosts it for a laugh should be prosecuted? What about the person who downloads the video? What if the sadistic teen downloads the video from PETA's website? Is that now a crime,though it would not be if an animal rights activist downloads the video?

3. What kinds of recordings do you want to be illegal and why? Video recordings are being discussed, but what about audio recordings or still photos? What about textual recordings? What if a writer witnessed a puppy stomping, made a gruesomely detailed verbal description of it, and then made that text available via the web. Should that be illegal? What if someone who has never witnessed a puppy stomping wrote their own, equally gruesome fictional story about puppy stomping? Would that be illegal too, since it is a substantially similar account? That is how we handle child pornography (at least in my state). Simulated (faked) child pornography is prosecuted just as if the participants were actually under the age of consent. Should it also be so for all other crimes?

User avatar
god0fgod
Registered User
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Petition banning "Crush" videos

Post by god0fgod » Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:40 pm

The difference between the "honour killing" and the "crush" videos is that the "honour killings" are suicide and isn't murder. The people recording these videos are supporting the crime by doing so and the videos shouldn't be watched by anyone and so it should be illegal.

Kim_Possible
Registered User
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 3:57 pm

Re: Petition banning "Crush" videos

Post by Kim_Possible » Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:48 pm

god0fgod wrote:The difference between the "honour killing" and the "crush" videos is that the "honour killings" are suicide and isn't murder. The people recording these videos are supporting the crime by doing so and the videos shouldn't be watched by anyone and so it should be illegal.
No, the honor killing was a video of the Taliban stoning a 16 year old girl to death for being accused of sexual immorality. Several of the local news stations (and I assume their network/cable affiliates) showed parts of the video (the parts that weren't too gruesome). Should that be a crime?

What about the all the videos of the destruction of the World Trade Towers that were made? The news stations will be showing those things all day in a few days. Does that make the news stations and the people who watch them guilty of "supporting the crime?"

User avatar
god0fgod
Registered User
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Petition banning "Crush" videos

Post by god0fgod » Sat Sep 05, 2009 5:09 pm

No but the people who post the "crush" videos will most likely be supporting it.

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”