US to criminalize taping of animal cruelty - Page 7

On April 12 2013 06:18 sam!zdat wrote:
corporations are not anyone, because they aren't people

if they're doing something they don't want people to see, they shouldn't be doing it

On April 12 2013 06:22 Xapti wrote:
I think it makes sense that the video taping without permission should be against the law, and even that the tapes get recalled.

How would you like it if some peeping tom or spy was recording embarrassing and/or intimate or taboo situations? If it's something you didn't want out there, you would probably want those tapes recalled, and because it was on private property without your permission, you'd have full rights to that desire.

That said, there should have to be some sort of organization that IS allowed to do inspections undercover in order to ensure proper regulations are being followed, since there is obviously an issue with the way things are going.

On April 12 2013 06:22 Xapti wrote:
I think it makes sense that the video taping without permission should be against the law, and even that the tapes get recalled.

How would you like it if some peeping tom or spy was recording embarrassing and/or intimate or taboo situations? If it's something you didn't want out there, you would probably want those tapes recalled, and because it was on private property without your permission, you'd have full rights to that desire.

That said, there should have to be some sort of organization that IS allowed to do inspections undercover in order to ensure proper regulations are being followed, since there is obviously an issue with the way things are going.

On April 12 2013 06:32 Barrin wrote:
The worst part about corporations is that they are *legally required* to do what's in the best interest of their shareholders.

Yes, required. I used to think that it was just okay for them to do it. Nope. It's required.

edit: $_$

On April 12 2013 06:35 dAPhREAk wrote:

...

seriously? of course they are legally required to do whats in the best interests of the individuals that own them.....

On April 12 2013 06:20 Barrin wrote:

:\

If you have a birth certificate, then you are already entered into the legal system and you have to follow all legislation regardless. When you are born in the hospital, your parents don't actually have to sign this. If they don't you are not (at least not yet) entered into the legal system. Legally, this birth certificate is actually a whole new "person" that you become responsible for. Legally, an "artifical person", separate from your "real person".

If you are not entered into the *cough*corporation of*cough* the united states of america, then you only have to follow whichever legislation that you GIVE CONSENT TO.

Consent. Persons. I'm talking your language now, right?

(Almost) every legislation has a stipulations regarding who it refers to. One legislation made it so that when every other legislation refers to a "person", they're ONLY referring to "artificial persons" and NOT "real persons". Not all real persons have an artificial person, and if you have one it is possible to get rid of it (again, I don't plan on doing this sort of thing).

If you are a real person who isn't responsible for an artificial person, then unless the legislation explicit says otherwise, you do not have to give consent to the government to be governed, and they do not have the right do put you in jail or fine you or anything (lesser courts might not recognize this, but the supreme court definitely will).

Let's be clear that hurting and stealing from other people is not only illegal but also unlawful. I hope I helped, rest is for you.


Almost forgot: yes you can get away with more like this. no it is not convenient, especially if you're poor.

BTW your "I must look better than other ppl, at all costs!" demeanor is getting annoying.

On April 12 2013 06:38 sam!zdat wrote:


because the corporation has been nothing but a way for bourgeois scum to perpetrate violence by proxy ever since the british east india company. Even your boy adam smith thought they were evil

On April 12 2013 06:35 sc4k wrote:
Pretty amazing to see people have the gall to play devil's advocate against this. It's completely bizarre and insane to have a law like this. Shocking.

On April 12 2013 06:59 Barrin wrote:

You mistake me, indeed of course it makes sense that corporations generally do whats in the best interests of the individuals that own them. If they didn't they'd go bankrupt if they could ever get investors again to begin with. Tough world, gotta make money.

But... legally required? Are you legally required to do whats in the best interest for you?

Don't get me wrong, I think businesses owners should be held accountable to their investors.

But I don't think they should be given a badge - and even be encouraged - to run around taking advantage of everything and everyone but their own investors... FOR EXAMPLE... the massive Arkansas ExxonMobil oil spill happening in Arkansas right now.

You're damn right those people are doing what's in the best interest of their shareholders (unless they happen to live in Arkansas, haha oops, but they prbly don't).

It's the government's job to protect the people, i.e. the people of Arkansas, from being the victims of decidedly reckless corporation policies (i.e. greedy rich people).


Unless.... $_$ the government has been corrupted by greedy rich people $_$

On April 12 2013 06:56 dAPhREAk wrote:

you could probably substitute just about any word with corporation in that sentence. the rich will always use their wealth and influence to their own gain. i do not know who adam smith is.

The New York Times mentions several reasons why meat producers object to the practice of covert filming. First, the disturbing treatment of animals depicted in the videos may actually represent ‘best practice’, and therefore does not count as mistreatment at all. Second, meat producers suspect that the true motivation in producing the videos is not to protect animals, but to persuade people not to eat meat.1 Third, they complain that the videos are made available online before the company has had an opportunity to address the abusive behaviour of its employees.

This legislation is, understandably, highly controversial. Imagine if similar legislation were proposed to restrict the activities of undercover police officers, requiring them to declare their links to the police force whenever they attempted to obtain undercover employment, and to reveal any evidence gained almost immediately, thus curtailing their ability to build a case over time. Such legislation would effectively put an end to undercover police operations, and we could expect many of the worst sort of criminals to go unpunished as a result...

There is at least one important difference...unlike the police, animal charities often publicise their evidence online before it has been evaluated by the usual legal processes, and before the animal abusers or their employers have had a chance to put their case; as a result, these charities arguably act unfairly.

(NB : interesting fact, I read this on a French newspaper, only to realize that it was the direct translation of a NY Times article... without any mention of the original source. I wonder if it's a normal thing to do...?)