HomeCat NewsNew federal act prohibiting crush videos deemed to be constitutional and effective

Comments

New federal act prohibiting crush videos deemed to be constitutional and effective — 11 Comments

  1. Also marla and I had a fight on our hands with the ACLU who opposed the Bill 5566.

    November 15, 2010
    U. S. House of Representatives
    Washington, DC 20510
    Re: ACLU Opposes H.R. 5566 – Animal Crush Video Pr
    ohibition
    Act of 2010
    Dear Representative:
    On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (AC
    LU), its more than
    half a million members, countless additional activi
    sts and supporters, and
    fifty-three affiliates nationwide, we write once ag
    ain in opposition to H.R.
    5566, the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 201
    0. We urge you to
    vote “NO” when this bill comes to the floor on the
    suspension calendar.
    We opposed the original form of this bill when it c
    ame up for a vote in the
    House in July.
    1
    We also submitted a written statement to the Sena
    te
    Judiciary Committee when the bill was the subject o
    f a hearing in that
    forum in September.
    2
    The Senate passed an amended version of the bill,
    which is scheduled to come before the House for a v
    ote as early as today.
    While we understand that the House will consider a
    further amendment
    that limits the new crimes created by the bill, we
    continue to oppose the
    bill. In fact, the bill approved by the Senate is
    substantially more likely to
    run afoul of constitutional free speech standards t
    han even the bill
    approved by the House in July.
    H. R. 5566 could be crafted in any of a number of w
    ays to focus on those
    who actually inflict cruelty on animals. The bill
    approved by the Senate
    instead criminalizes the conduct of those who merel
    y document such
    cruelty or distribute such depictions to others – r
    egardless of the intent of
    those creating or distributing such depictions. As
    a result, this bill is far
    more likely to face constitutional challenge – the
    same fate that befell
    predecessor legislation and which resulted in the S
    upreme Court striking
    down the law earlier this year.

  2. What I don’t understand, is why crush videos aren’t illegal on the grounds of animal cruelty?

    It doesn’t make sense to me that these horrific acts aren’t covered by existing laws meant to protect animals from harm and suffering.

    • My feelings too and I am glad you made that point. I wrote this page in a bit of a rush last night and missed writing about the point you have made which needs to be addressed. I’ll see if I can address it. Thanks Michele.

      Update: Having thought about it for a minute, I have a feeling I know what it might be. The existing animal welfare laws do cover crush videos. The crush video prohibition law covers the sale of crush videos – i.e. making a profit from them. It extends the existing law. That I believe is the answer. I’ll add a paragraph to the page. Thanks again.

        • You pose another good question 😉 . I am sure they are illegal. Their illegality must be covered by the Animal Welfare Act 2006 but there may well be other statutes involved regarding the commercial element (distribution and commercialisation). That is a fairly vague answer.

  3. This is more sad news about HSUS, PETA, and the ASPCA
    not giving a damn. I don’t trust them at all.

    Thank you for sharing about your work. I appreciate your efforts in publicizing this. I feel sick about the suffering imposed on so many helpless animals.

  4. This piece shocks me because back in 2004 I viewed my first crush video of a chinese woman crushing a kitten with her heel and after that I advocated for years to get people on board to bring this vile fetish to the fore front and no one paid attention until 2009 when the video was circulating again and shared it with my AR people and thats when http://www.stopcrush was created by me and several other people,I was the PR person to get interviews for the founder of stopcrush and prevailed,Thomas Janak out of the UK was the first to interview the founder of stopcrush (Marla Stormwolf-Patty)along with Anthony Damiano who took my place as co-founder,we fought hard to bring the Bill 5566 into legislation and won and once it was on the floor Obama signed the Bill into law but a whole lot of good that did since a couple in TX were arrested and then released by the Judge,the HSUS,PETA or the ASPCA would not even give us the time of day when we needed them the most and sadly crush videos are still making their rounds!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.