EPTUS to criminalize taping of animal cruelty - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7222 Posts
| ||
|
McBengt
Sweden1684 Posts
Edit: Too late. Well the basis of the law is that these farms are private property so they should be able to control this kind of stuff. I can understand that as long as regulators do there job. A crime taking place on private property is still a crime. It's not a sanctuary where you can do as you please. Regulators cannot possible oversee the amount of farms that exist in the US today, and often don't have legal recourses to do much with the cases they actually do come across. | ||
|
Eben
United States769 Posts
On April 12 2013 04:06 Thorakh wrote: Lol, I thought this thread would be about making you and your friends taping abusing that stray cat illegal. Oh boy, was I wrong. this is exactly what I thought it would be about. Pretty surprised by the actual content. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On April 12 2013 03:58 ThomasjServo wrote: I have no issue with their filming, animal rights isn't a big pet issue for me, but if activists are getting through your presumably exhaustive screening process for employment their activities are on you as a company. Your employees shouldn't have to be made party to abuse by virtue of you not adhering to existing legislation whether they are activists or not. If employees are doing this for fun, that video should serve as excellent evidence for their termination. If they are simply documenting industry standard slaughterhouse procedure which is within the limits of the current law I don't see any problem either (unless they have industry secrets, which I doubt but may allow for some peripheral legal case). Agriculture isn't a glamorous industry, but at some point the cow that made your burger was killed so you could have it. I eat meat and recognize this fact. Someone did point this somewhere, but there isn't however any reason to fear legal repercussions if your employees act within the law. Any campaign built on footage of legal acts can also fall under defamation condemnatios. You can also count the taping of legal practices as a way to promote a different legislation that does not allow the torture of livestock. I do agree that meat is tasty, but those three ribs a day come at a very big ecological price, even though the supermarket says it's cheap. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On April 12 2013 04:08 CajunMan wrote: I can understand that as long as regulators do there job. they don't, of course | ||
|
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
On April 12 2013 04:09 Eben wrote: this is exactly what I thought it would be about. Pretty surprised by the actual content. Same here. What the hell is wrong with these people? | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
however, then i recalled that this is not something new and unheard of under the law. you can ask whatever questions you want in a job interview concerning animal rights groups and make employment decisions based on it. you can also put whatever legal conditions you want in the employment agreement (no photos, no video), which is quite common in industry--usually where processes are protected though, not something like this. so, what do we do about people who commit fraud (e.g., lying on employment applications) and break contracts (e.g., taking photos and video without authorization) for their own ends? i guess criminalizing (criminal not civil) the behavior is one way, but it seems excessive and supportive of cover-ups. however, breach of contract (civil) doesn't really seem sufficient to prevent the illegal behavior. also, whistle blower laws will protect employees disclosing illegal activities, so that is not even a concern in these cases. | ||
|
Hitch-22
Canada753 Posts
On April 12 2013 04:08 CajunMan wrote: Well the basis of the law is that these farms are private property so they should be able to control this kind of stuff. I can understand that as long as regulators do there job. It also, however, allows the full closure of all abuses on their property... It's like simply saying "we'll have animal fighting (i.e. dog cage fights) on our private land, it's private, it's alright". Doesn't quite work that way and it shouldn't be either. | ||
|
REDBLUEGREEN
Germany1903 Posts
| ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
A matter of perspective, your implication (hyperbolic as it may be) is that a significant percentage of slaughterhouse employees are sadists who would willfully inflict undue harm to an animal bred for consumption prior to its being killed. Obviously the goal of existing laws is to minimize suffering of those animals, it was be as naive of me as an omnivore to think that every slaughterhouse adhered precisely to the letter of them as it most ardent animal rights supporter to think that by the end of their life everyone will be a vegetarian. If this filming is helping shut down those places and drive up the industry standard for the killing of live stock (that is to say, making it more human in any given fashion), let them film. I did enjoy your post "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of an animal rights organization?" Like McCarthy was running the hiring process. I don't have any delusions about where my food comes from, I eat vegetarian a lot because its cheaper. Realistically I think fighting for more humane treatment of livestock is more viable than a lot of the stated goals of groups this is targeted at. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On April 12 2013 04:13 ThomasjServo wrote: A matter of perspective, your implication is that a significant percentage of slaughterhouse employees is a sadist who willfully inflicts undue harm to an animal bred for consumption prior to its being killed. Obviously the goal of existing laws is to minimize suffering of those animals who needs sadists when you have limited liability corporations that exist to legally prohibit morality? and people who work in these places DO become desensitized to suffering - they don't have to start out sadists. the places make them sadists. the existing laws don't do shit even if they were enforced, it's all in the pocket of agribusiness. if you think that big ag isn't writing all the legislation, you're delusional. that's how democracy works comrade On April 12 2013 04:13 ThomasjServo wrote:Realistically I think fighting for more humane treatment of livestock is more viable than a lot of the stated goals of groups this is targeted at. indubitably. but i support hell-raising by anyone, even if they are delusional | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
| ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
| ||
|
CajunMan
United States823 Posts
On April 12 2013 04:12 Hitch-22 wrote: It also, however, allows the full closure of all abuses on their property... It's like simply saying "we'll have animal fighting (i.e. dog cage fights) on our private land, it's private, it's alright". Doesn't quite work that way and it shouldn't be either. Well that is different here you are just allowing people to freely go and take pictures of peoples private property and work. You and they are just assuming what they are doing is illegal. I'm not saying if they aren't seen all is good I'm saying with the government doing there job properly this is a nonissue and how it should be. Course that is not how it always is but i am more willing to side with someone's privacy and assuming the better with checkups than forcing an open door policy to anyone that wants access to your private property. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On April 12 2013 04:19 CajunMan wrote: Well that is different here you are just allowing people to freely go and take pictures of peoples private property and work. You and they are just assuming what they are doing is illegal. I'm not saying if they aren't seen all is good I'm saying with the government doing there job properly this is a nonissue and how it should be. Course that is not how it always is but i am more willing to side with someone's privacy and assuming the better with checkups than forcing an open door policy to anyone that wants access to your private property. so you prefer legal and evil to illegal and good. word. edit: why do people keep talking about "the government doing its job properly?" what a joke | ||
|
farvacola
United States18824 Posts
On April 12 2013 04:19 CajunMan wrote: Well that is different here you are just allowing people to freely go and take pictures of peoples private property and work. You and they are just assuming what they are doing is illegal. I'm not saying if they aren't seen all is good I'm saying with the government doing there job properly this is a nonissue and how it should be. Course that is not how it always is but i am more willing to side with someone's privacy and assuming the better with checkups than forcing an open door policy to anyone that wants access to your private property. We are talking farms that feed the entire country, do you really not see why considerations of privacy might be different in this case? Since a consumer is practically unable to see the chicken before it gets slaughtered in pursuit of making a shopping choice, why would allowing public viewing of these farms be a bad thing? | ||
|
FarmI3oy
United States255 Posts
Don't like it? Do it yourself or fuck off. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On April 12 2013 04:22 FarmI3oy wrote: Don't like it? Do it yourself or fuck off. that's what democracy is supposed to be for, dude. you shouldn't have to do everything yourself to avoid engaging in unethical behavior. openness! | ||
|
meadbert
United States681 Posts
"They have also drafted measures to require such videos to be given to the authorities almost immediately, which activists say would thwart any meaningful undercover investigation of large factory farms. " It sounds to me like the purpose of the law is to promote prompt disclosure to authorities. Animal rights activists have a conflict of interest. Their goal in obtaining these jobs is to acquire horrific videos to further their agenda. If given an choice to turn over what they have immediately or hold out and wait for even more terrible abuses to be recorded they have an incentive to do the latter even though ethics dictate they should do the former. The goal of at least that law is to incentive the activists to turn of the videos ASAP, although I share their concern that it would hamper undercover investigations in general. There are also free speech considerations as well as potential fifth amendment considerations if the activist has engaged in any illegal activity. | ||
|
McBengt
Sweden1684 Posts
On April 12 2013 04:22 FarmI3oy wrote: So many people have problems with big agriculture and worry about how their food gets to their plate. I'm glad I don't have this problem. Every bit of meat I eat is killed, butchered, and cooked with my own two hands. People whine and complain about how animal's are treated when they are being raised for slaughter. They even have the stones to complain about how they die. Don't like it? Do it yourself or fuck off. This is unreasonable. I feel fully entitled to moral outrage over inhumane treatment of animals even if I'm not a farmer or hunter. I have no qualms about killing for food, it's natural, but you're damn right I'm going to complain if living, feeling creatures who have done nothing wrong are tormented needlessly. It's immoral, and it's illegal. | ||
| ||
