EPTUS to criminalize taping of animal cruelty - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
diehilde
Germany1596 Posts
| ||
|
GolemMadness
Canada11044 Posts
| ||
|
Disregard
China10252 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On April 12 2013 07:41 carloselcoco wrote: Believe it or not it is. It actually works more like this: Someone writes a story and it goes into a data base. From that database of stories, other newspapers can select which stories they would like to be featured on their newspaper. Its not even that romantic. Someone writes a, and if they are employed writers as opposed to contracted writers, what they write might or might not be put into *a* database. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On April 12 2013 07:44 diehilde wrote: I dont really get it. So for privacy reasons its technically illegal to film inside a private corp. Why the need to specify "taping of animal cruelty"? Seems to me there is no difference to a simple ban on filming anything without consent from the employer, which most likely is already in place. Also its only _technically_ illegal - some judge actually has to sentence the offender. I believe no judge in their right mind would do that. To kick it up a notch lets say you - technically illegally - film some colleagues at work that are butchering and shreddering newborn children of mexican immigrants in the dozens to add to livestock food. Now you go ahead and expose that horrible crime - would any court really sentence you for breaching privacy rights? Hell yes they would! "Would you do it again son?" "Uh... no sir?" "I'm glad you learned your lesson" | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On April 12 2013 07:44 diehilde wrote: I dont really get it. So for privacy reasons its technically illegal to film inside a private corp. Why the need to specify "taping of animal cruelty"? Seems to me there is no difference to a simple ban on filming anything without consent from the employer, which most likely is already in place. Also its only _technically_ illegal - some judge actually has to sentence the offender. I believe no judge in their right mind would do that. To kick it up a notch lets say you - technically illegally - film some colleagues at work that are butchering and shreddering newborn children of mexican immigrants in the dozens to add to livestock food. Now you go ahead and expose that horrible crime - would any court really sentence you for breaching privacy rights? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower | ||
|
AeroGear
Canada652 Posts
| ||
|
autoexec
United States530 Posts
| ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On April 12 2013 07:51 Thieving Magpie wrote: Its not even that romantic. Someone writes a, and if they are employed writers as opposed to contracted writers, what they write might or might not be put into *a* database. From what I understood newspaper bough short notices from press agencies, but always rewrote them themselves. I didn't know they could simply copy paste press releases. | ||
|
AeroGear
Canada652 Posts
On April 12 2013 07:58 autoexec wrote: Meh. Meat is too yummy and protein packed to give up. It's not about cutting on your meat purchases, its about purchasing from a supplier who demonstrates that he does'nt mistreat animals rather than from MegaFarmCorp which optimizes profits (theirs, not yours obviously). | ||
|
diehilde
Germany1596 Posts
So there we have it. I guess animal cruelty is illegal as well? So when you film that and expose it your protected as well. So basically the law is only on paper, but in practice it doesnt mean jackshit because you are protected from legal repercussions when you actually film illegal activity like animal cruelty and expose it. | ||
|
MrTortoise
1388 Posts
| ||
|
Shival
Netherlands643 Posts
Ridiculous law, and the reason behind it is completely flawed aswell. When they outlaw 'whistleblowing', making it akin to terrorism because it damages a certain sector's reputation, doesn't such a law in fact damage the entire nation's reputation, instead of just a sector? Sigh... idiots. | ||
|
EleanorRIgby
Canada3923 Posts
| ||
|
yandere991
Australia394 Posts
On topic: wouldn't legalising this open a new can of worms in that someone could come into your house and take evidence of say your piracy history and that would be permissible in court? | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On April 12 2013 08:20 yandere991 wrote: On topic: wouldn't legalising this open a new can of worms in that someone could come into your house and take evidence of say your piracy history and that would be permissible in court? It's already legal and people don't break into houses I believe ! | ||
|
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Forgive me, but it looks that that's the price of cheap eggs. The reason I got their nutrition on a tight budget back in the late teens/early twenties. Something I draw the line as on the side of necessary for human pop and poverty and not the cheap beefs etc. I oppose any laws banning undercover photographs and videos that go beyond existing laws, such as trespassing on private property (for non-employees) and videotaping people with audio without their consent. If you want to build support for increasing the living spaces of hens, cows, pigs, and the rest, use whatever legal means you wish. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On April 12 2013 08:06 diehilde wrote: So there we have it. I guess animal cruelty is illegal as well? So when you film that and expose it your protected as well. So basically the law is only on paper, but in practice it doesnt mean jackshit because you are protected from legal repercussions when you actually film illegal activity like animal cruelty and expose it. But if that is true, why have interest groups relevant to the farm industry pushed for this law? Money doesn't grow on trees. Who's going to get fired for pouring money on a useless endeavor? ...wait, reading article again. What's this about a "terrorist registry"? Ok, the disclosure requirements to law enforcement are terrible for whistleblowers trying to put together a case. Interest group support makes more sense now. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://s1.lemde.fr/image/2013/02/11/534x267/1830530_3_efe9_elevage-de-poules-pondeuses-en-batterie_a4cf4234966c30d16af5e117786c6e1a.jpg)
