from the how-your-food-really-gets-made dept.
A federal judge in Idaho has ruled that an "ag-gag" law is unconstitutional. For those unfamilar, an ag-gag law, as defined by the article is "[a law that] outlawed undercover investigations of farming operations, is no more. A judge in the federal District Court for Idaho decided Monday that it was unconstitutional, citing First Amendment protections for free speech". As reported:
Laws in Montana, Utah, North Dakota, Missouri, Kansas and Iowa have also made it illegal for activists to smuggle cameras into industrial animal operations. But now those laws' days could be numbered, according to the lead attorney for the coalition of animal welfare groups that sued the state of Idaho.
"This is a total victory on our two central constitutional claims," says University of Denver law professor Justin Marceau, who represented the plaintiff, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, in the case. "Ag-gag laws violate the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause. This means that these laws all over the country are in real danger."
"Ag-gag" refers to a variety of laws meant to curb undercover investigations of agricultural operations, often large dairy, poultry and pork farms. The Idaho law criminalized video or audio recording of a farm without the owner's consent, and lying to a farm owner to gain employment there to do an undercover investigation.
Previously: Dairy Lobbyist Crafted Idaho's "Ag-Gag" Legislation.
Related Stories
The Intercept reporter Lee Fang obtained emails through an Idaho public records request exposing dairy lobbyist involvement in crafting "Ag-gag" legislation. "Ag-gag" describes a class of agricultural industry anti-whistleblower legislation that now exists in several states, usually prohibiting photography and audio/visual recording:
State Sen. Jim Patrick, R-Twin Falls, said he sponsored the bill in response to an activist-filmed undercover video that showed cows at an Idaho plant being beaten by workers, dragged by the neck with chains, and forced to live in pens covered in fæces, which activists said made the cows slip, fall and injure themselves. The facility, Bettencourt Dairies, is a major supplier for Burger King and Kraft. The workers who were filmed were fired.
Introducing the bill, Patrick compared the activists behind the Bettencourt video to marauding invaders who burned crops to starve their enemies. "This is clear back in the sixth century B.C.," Patrick said, according to Al Jazeera America. "This is the way you combat your enemies." Patrick's bill was introduced on February 10, 2014, sailed through committee within days, and was signed by Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter on February 28. The legislation calls for a year in jail and fines up to $5,000 for covertly recording abuses on farms or for those who lie on employment applications about ties to animal rights groups or news organizations.
But the groundwork was laid by Dan Steenson, a registered lobbyist (pdf) for the Idaho Dairymen's Association, a trade group for the industry. Steenson testified in support of the ag-gag bill, clearly disclosing his relationship with the trade group. Emails, however, show that he also helped draft the bill. On January 30, before Sen. Patrick's bill was formally introduced, Steenson emailed Bob Naerebout, another Dairymen lobbyist, and Brian Kane, the Assistant Chief Deputy of the state attorney general's office, with a copy of the legislation. "The attached draft incorporates the suggestions you gave us this morning," Steenson wrote, thanking Kane for his help in reviewing the bill. Kane responded with "one minor addition" to the legislation, which he described to Steenson as "your draft." The draft text of the legislation emailed by Steenson closely mirrors the bill (pdf) signed into law.
Original Submission
A federal judge has ruled that Utah's ban on secretly filming farm and slaughterhouse operations is unconstitutional:
[U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby] rejected the state's defense of the law, saying Utah had failed to show the ban was intended to ensure the safety of animals and farm workers from disease or injury.
In his ruling, Shelby noted that one of the bill's sponsors in the state legislature, Rep. John Mathis, said the ban was a response to "a trend nationally of some propaganda groups ... with a stated objective of undoing animal agriculture in the United States." The judge noted that another sponsor, Sen. David Hinkins said it targeted "vegetarian people that [are] trying to kill the animal industry."
Ag-gag is a term used to describe a class of anti-whistleblower laws that apply within the agriculture industry.
Previously: Dairy Lobbyist Crafted Idaho's "Ag-Gag" Legislation
Federal Judge Strikes Down Idaho's "Ag-Gag" Law
(Score: 4, Funny) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday August 05 2015, @06:51AM
Federal Judge Strikes Down Idaho's "Ag-Gag" Law
Popeye is said to be delighted.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @07:18AM
The ag-gag law has been decided to be unconstitutional. That's part one.
So some politicians, and indirectly some lobbyists, must previously have introduced an illegal "law". That should be punishable - an tangible wrong was done. These people are either incompetent, or corrupt. Put them in the stocks! (Or, in parlance youngsters will understand, make them do the "walk of shame".) These people should not be able to hold their head high in public.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @03:56PM
By making laws that are outright unconstitutional, or laws that subvert or undermine the constitution, they are advocating the overthrow of our constitutional form of government (because you obviously don't have a constitutional form of government if the constitution no longer applies due to "workarounds" or outright ignoring the constitution). This is illegal under Title 5 USC Section 7311, with punishment listed under Title 18 USC Section 1918.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Gravis on Wednesday August 05 2015, @09:44AM
it should be a punishable offence to pass overtly unconstitutional laws like this.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday August 05 2015, @09:50AM
Agreed. I think the punishment should be that they be burned at the stake. It seems appropriate. If that seems inappropriate, they should be forced to live in a small cage in one of these awful chicken farms for a week or work for a month in a chicken slaughtering plant. If they ever eat chicken again I'll be shocked.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday August 05 2015, @01:27PM
they should either be burned at the stake or have their heads cut off.
I think the stake is better; a hot steak is much better than a cold chop! (nyuk, nyuk!)
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @03:58PM
It is. [cornell.edu]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @05:07PM
> it should be a punishable offence to pass overtly unconstitutional laws like this.
Its called having to run for election.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @06:21PM
And when they lose, they move immediately into being a lobbyist for the same industry they passed this law for. That's a heckuva punishment.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday August 05 2015, @09:32PM
If a normal person breaks the law, do they just lose an election? No. They receive some sort of actual punishment, which oftentimes ends up being jail or prison. For something as serious as violating the highest law of the land, the punishment should be quite severe (prison time), and they should be barred from public positions of power.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mendax on Wednesday August 05 2015, @09:46AM
Laws like the one which was struck down are almost always unconstitutional. Prior restraints on free speech imposed by the government are unconstitutional unless there is some compelling reason for justifying it, and it has to be VERY compelling. To give you an idea of how compelling it has to be, the classified report known as the Pentagon Papers [wikipedia.org] were obtained by the New York Times and the attempt by the government to prevent their publication was quashed by the Supreme Court. And I remember reading when I did some legal research about a California case [wikipedia.org] where a man's conviction for disturbing the peace because he wore a T-shirt with the words "Fuck the draft" was tossed on similar grounds.
I really don't understand why governments continue to do these stupid things. They're going to lose in court in every case.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by physicsmajor on Wednesday August 05 2015, @12:57PM
That's simple: someone has to fight it, the courts are slow, and until a decision is made, they get away with the illegal limitations.
Also trusting the courts is dangerous. Only takes one stupid, bad, or corrupt judge to set precedents we then have to live with. The smaller defendant can go bankrupt at any time, leaving a bad decision unappealed. Can't count on SCOTUS to do their jobs today, either.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday August 05 2015, @05:37PM
On this one I think you can count on them to toss it if it ever gets that far, and it probably won't. It might be appealed to them but I doubt they'll choose to hear the case unless the lower court says the law is constitutional.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday August 05 2015, @01:37PM
they buy time, they get things 'done' for their friends and they can say 'hey, we tried!'
also, there is the chance that the fight will last years and maybe they might even win and get to keep their illegal law.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 05 2015, @02:27PM
Too true. The full context of the decision is not laid out in the summary: This was a trial court decision. It can now be appealed to the Court of Appeals, and from there to the Supreme Court. So the fight is far from over.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday August 05 2015, @05:33PM
The fight is far from over but the law and other laws like this are dead. I'd bet real money, not Bitcoin, on it.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 05 2015, @07:23PM
The fight needs to be fought as hard as possible. I'm a pessimist though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @02:09PM
I really don't understand why governments continue to do these stupid things.
Because the act of going to court is punishment in and of itself. You put a person in jail for a while, get negative publicity against them, deprive them of income for the period of time, have a permanent record of them being arrested, have the expense of getting a lawyer, have the uncertainty of whether the courts will find for the innocent person.
There is also the Chilling Effect [wikipedia.org]. As well as the trying to shift the Spheres in Hallin's Spheres [wikipedia.org]. Not to mention Political Posturing [wikipedia.org].
And courts are far from perfect. No matter what your political or legal bend I'm sure you can think of at least one case which went the "wrong way." There is every chance that a law could stick even when it "shouldn't."
There are numerous reasons why a politician would vote in these kinds of laws... and that's even assuming they don't honestly believe it is the right thing to do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @02:24PM
Prior restraints on free speech imposed by the government are unconstitutional unless there is some compelling reason for justifying it, and it has to be VERY compelling.
Wrong. They are *always* unconstitutional, if you read the real first amendment, and not the fake version the courts created.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday August 05 2015, @05:34PM
I really don't understand why governments continue to do these stupid things. They're going to lose in court in every case.
It is pandering to a political base. After these bad laws are inevitably struck down, you get a lot of hand-wringing and whining about "activist" courts, thus further uniting the political base and ensuring re-election.
(Score: 2) by Username on Wednesday August 05 2015, @11:14AM
Even if there is animal abuse, The photographer is still trespassing and invading the farmer’s privacy. Be the same as me looking inside your windows, waiting to take photos of you to scolding your dog. The dog will have an sad/hurt face while you look violent and abusive. You’ll look bad no matter what.
(Score: 3, Touché) by SpockLogic on Wednesday August 05 2015, @12:45PM
The photographer is still trespassing and invading the farmer’s privacy.
Please explain how an employee is trespassing.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 05 2015, @01:31PM
You got it right. An employee cannot be trespassing. And, any attempt to pass a similar law (I believe that there IS such a law) making it a crime to get a job for the purpose of documenting animal abuse would be just as unconstitutional. There is only the vaguest of justification for suing for fraud, if an employee turns out to be an animal rights activist. That vague justification is outweighed thousands of times by your constitutional rights.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday August 05 2015, @08:24PM
You got it right. An employee cannot be trespassing.
An employee may have a right to be there, but he may not have a right to perform activities outside of his specific duties. This is already the case in many places - no need to go farther than your local hospital. A nurse can care for the patient, and he can take a picture if requested by the physician, but it wouldn't be very proper to take pictures without permission of people in charge and/or the patient. You can easily come up with many examples where an employee is expected to do his job but is not permitted do something else that damages interests of his employer.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday August 05 2015, @09:40PM
That's not a crime though, it's a civil dispute. As it should be.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday August 05 2015, @10:01PM
Either way, you can't get the employee merely for recording a video. Also, the government has no obligation to enforce any employer-employee contracts or any other such thing if doing so conflicts with basic rights.
Medical privacy is unrelated to acting as a whistleblower and showing that animals are being abused.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday August 05 2015, @10:34PM
Also, the government has no obligation to enforce any employer-employee contracts
It has an obligation to mediate or enforce them if the employer or the employee request mediation by filing a lawsuit or a report with the police. But probably the government shouldn't make a law for convenience of a certain group of employers.
Medical privacy is unrelated to acting as a whistleblower and showing that animals are being abused.
Whistleblower is a person who exposes crime. A person who exposes behavior that he personally finds unpleasant is not a whistleblower, and he doesn't have much protection. For example, does a gay-hating employee have a right to expose that his boss and the secretary are engaged in gay relations? In a town that is predominantly bible-thumping? Wouldn't it be proper for the boss and his lover to sue the busybody employee?
One can say that animal abuse is different. But it's all shades. Laws are usually very specific about what is and what is not crime. "Abuse" has no strict definition. A worker may be unhappy that chickens are confined to small cages - is this abuse? This cannot be decided on the level of a given business, as it is a widespread practice. It can be decided and controlled only on the level of lawmakers. If cages less than n x m inches are illegal, then an employee can take a measuring tape, measure the cage, and if it doesn't conform then he can call the police. The problem with activist employers is that nobody knows what their personal threshold of abuse is, and nobody wants to have a loose cannon on the staff. The advantage of having laws is that they tell everyone - the employee and the employer - what the threshold is.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday August 05 2015, @11:14PM
It has an obligation to mediate or enforce them if the employer or the employee request mediation by filing a lawsuit or a report with the police.
But that does not mean the employer will win.
Whistleblower is a person who exposes crime.
Or unethical activities. You can argue that what qualifies as unethical varies from person to person, but that's irrelevant to me.
One can say that animal abuse is different.
It is, because one case involves the privacy of actual human beings, and another involves abuse of animals. The animals aren't going to care if their 'privacy' is violated. The owner of the animals did not have their privacy violated in any significant way.
It's good that the courts threw this unconstitutional trash out.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday August 06 2015, @12:32AM
Or unethical activities. You can argue that what qualifies as unethical varies from person to person, but that's irrelevant to me.
Well, consider this then:
I think what you just did is unethical. As that's not illegal, I can't call the cops on you. Instead I'm going to destroy your business by convicting you in the court of public opinion, where the jury is NOT assembled from his peers and where the accused has no right for due process.
Again, it is not proper to call the cops on activities that are not codified as prohibited. I can even say that the reporting employee would be violating his employer's privacy with his livestock. Where does the employer's privacy ends and the animal's rights begin? I'll agree that sadism with animals is not OK - but is merely "an insufficient" (IMO) level of care is an indication that the employer should lose his livelihood without even the right to explain himself? Is a barbed wire, or electric fence cruel? Is a dry pasture with little vegetation cruel? Is not shooting the coyotes who try to snatch a calf cruel? Is shooting those coyotes cruel? Maybe you should just talk nice to them?
As you can see, I do object to expansion of the definition of whistleblower to anything that the observer personally considers "unethical activities." This is a steep slippery slope. There is not a single person in the world who does not consider some legally protected activities to be unethical. If you are pro-choice, for example, you are advocating for the world where pro-lifers destroy legal businesses of medical professionals who do what their clients want. This is why I say that you, and I, should be welcome to have personal opinions; but we should not have right to wantonly destroy legally functioning businesses just because *we* happen to dislike them. The law, made by elected representatives, says that those activities are protected. An individual has no right to make his own laws; if he doesn't like something, the first thing he can do is to get a different job; and then, perhaps, petition Congress. Otherwise it will be anarchy where everyone enforces his own set of laws by any means available, from black PR to arson and murder of doctors. We had a preview of that already [wikipedia.org].
My concern is that by fighting for well-being of animals you may tilt the balance so much that some well-established human freedoms will be undermined. There are already laws in all countries and states that prohibit animal abuse; they clearly differentiate between traditional methods of animal husbandry and abnormal, cruel and pointless infliction of pain and suffering. Reporting a sadist to the police not as much protects the animals, as it protects the humans from a budding serial killer.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 06 2015, @01:29AM
That's all food for thought. I'll reiterate other poster's points that trespass and performing tasks outside of your established duties are civil infractions, and that no criminal code law need be passed to deal with those acts. Civil law is quite sufficient to deal with contract violations.
The court of public opinion, huh? Well - let us bear in mind that most businesses related to the production of food are located in rural areas. The products of these businesses are sold to large corporations, for the most part. It's pretty tough to boycott Farmer Jones pork, because Farmer Jones doesn't market his product under his own name at the grocery in your neighborhood. The court of public opinion really can't touch Farmer Jones. That court would have to go after ConAgra, or Pilgrim, or some other mega-corporation.
Also, as has been pointed out, there are long established, accepted industry standards that are generally conformed to. If Farmer Jones conforms to standards, or very nearly conforms to those standards, then public opinion in the local community will be with Jones. If Jones, however, is known throughout the community to NOT conform to those standards - well - his ass may be grass, and the court you mention will be the lawn mower.
All in all, I think that things will tend to balance out. One doesn't address a spate of civil disputes by passing criminal law, outlawing photography in the vicinity of a protected business. One doesn't protect one group of people, by outlawing another group of people.
Time and again, the Supreme Court has made rulings which state that if and when an issue must be addressed, the law must be the least intrusive possible. There are times when freedom of speech must be restricted, but the very least oppressive measures must be taken. A blanket law that criminalizes photography in rural areas certainly won't meet that standard. Nor will a law which criminalizes photography on farms, or even inside of barns.
I would say that an ethical farmer has little to fear from the public. An unethical farmer and/or unethical employees has much to fear. And, that is the way it should be.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday August 06 2015, @02:05AM
Well, consider this then:
I've considered it. Sounds like freedom of speech to me. If people choose to listen your speech, that's on them.
I can even say that the reporting employee would be violating his employer's privacy with his livestock.
You could, but it would be silly be it has nothing to do with them personally, and freedom of speech ultimately trumps the "privacy" aspect anyway.
This is a steep slippery slope
And not reporting anything because it's technically not illegal isn't? Nice try.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @04:12PM
They cease being an employee the second they decide to become a whistle-blower.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday August 05 2015, @05:37PM
Too bad the employer does not cease being an employer as soon as they are doing something bad enough that it requires a whistle-blower.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 05 2015, @01:39PM
I'm no tree hugger. I'm not big into animal rights. Mostly, I don't care about food animals very much. They are raised to be eaten, someone is going to knock them in the head with a hammer, or slit their throats, or whatever. I can't be terribly concerned about food - I'm going to EAT IT after all.
But, there are some shockingly sick individuals - even groups of individuals - in the animal husbandry industry. Anyone who gets off making an animal suffer needs to be made to suffer. Our laws won't permit that, so it's got to be "good enough" that we can take them to court, and deprive them of their ill-gotten wages. Maybe deprive them of their freedom, as well. And, they damn sure need to be kept away from vulnerable women, children, infants, and elderly. The individual who can poke a cattle prod up an animal's anus and listen the the beast scream, is quite likely capable of doing the same to a human being.
This is one group of people who, upon conviction, should most definitely be prevented from ever owning a weapon. Guns, knives, clubs - you name it. No weapons, ever.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday August 05 2015, @02:04PM
That's obviously impractical, because there is absolutely nothing you can do to prevent sickos like that from picking up a large rock, unless we're thinking of introducing hand amputation as a form of punishment.
Part of the problem is that from the point of view of the more extreme animal rights activists, all methods used by the animal husbandry industry are unnecessarily cruel.
But like you, I take a middle ground. That might have to do with my admittedly limited experience doing hippie organic farming: When the animals ate what they were evolved to eat (e.g. cattle should eat grass), and were kept clean and attentively cared for, they were healthy and (as far as us humans could tell) happy, and both human and animal benefited from this arrangement. Even those animals destined to be eaten. The problem is that modern farming takes a lot of shortcuts and feeds animals what is plentiful rather than what they evolved to eat, pump them full of drugs to keep them from dying because of that, and minimize the amount of attention each animal gets.
Sure, the hippie methods are more expensive, but the results also taste better.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday August 05 2015, @02:31PM
This is one group of people who, upon conviction, should most definitely be prevented from ever owning a weapon. Guns, knives, clubs - you name it. No weapons, ever.
Sounds like a second amendment violation to me.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 05 2015, @02:44PM
Sounds like, or is?
No court has ever ruled that a convict should have the right to own weapons. Not that I have ever heard of, anyway. Nor has any court ruled the the dangerously insane should be supplied with weapons. And, that is my position - people who abuse animals are dangerously insane.
While it is true that not all animal abusers move on to abuse people - virtually all people abusers started out by abusing animals. The correlations have been shown often enough.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday August 05 2015, @02:50PM
Sounds like, or is?
Is. Read the second amendment if you don't believe me; it doesn't list a single exception. The courts are irrelevant, as the courts use a fake version of the constitution of their own making rather than the real one (or rather, they just ignore the constitution). I don't expect anything from them. Neither convicts nor the "dangerously insane" can be prohibited from owning weapons in a constitutional way.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 05 2015, @03:15PM
That would be alright with me. Let them get weapons. If I have to shoot a convict or a nut, the defense should be a hell of a lot easier. "Your honer, the bastard was talkng crazy, and waving a gun around, and pointing it at me. So, I shot him before I got shot!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @04:17PM
Except for that whole "well-regulated militia" part. You know, literally half the amendment. Per the constitution, only members of a well-regulated militia should have access to firearms.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 05 2015, @04:33PM
Totally Fucking Wrong
I'm fully aware of the "well regulated militia" bit. I AM THE MILITIA! Well, I was for a few decades - now I'm exempt. Every able bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45 is the militia. Sorry, women's libbers - you ain't the militia. You CAN BE, but you ain't, by definition.
Before you pull up that "well regulated militia", I suggest that you LEARN TO FUCKING READ! Reading comprehension requires that you understand the definitions of the words you read. It also requires that you understand the definitions intended by the author(s). In this case, all able bodied males were subject to call-up by the militia. All of them. A lot of not-so-able-bodied people answered the call anyway, because they thought it un-manly to sit out a war.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday August 05 2015, @06:14PM
If you believe that the second amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms, then you're not really a supporter of the second amendment if you also believe in random arbitrary limits, because the second amendment lists no limits.
If you do not believe that the second amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms, you might be more consistent than the fake second amendment supporters. But given that it mentions "the people", and given what a militia was at the time, it's more accurate to consider it an individual right. So the courts have been somewhat correct so far. Regardless, even absent the second amendment, the constitution does not explicitly grant the federal government the power to forbid individuals from owning weapons, so it doesn't have such a power. Some people who want gun control actually realize that you have to amend the constitution to fix the situation, rather than just ignore it. Much like the foolish prohibitionists realized they would have to amend the constitution. Now various drugs are declared illegal on a whim, in violation of the constitution. Where will this nonsense end?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 05 2015, @03:45PM
This is one group of people who, upon conviction
Conviction for what? There has to be a crime first.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @04:21PM
The group he's referring to is these people:
Animal cruelty is, in fact, a crime. Torture certainly classifies as cruelty.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 06 2015, @03:45PM
Anyone who gets off making an animal suffer needs to be made to suffer.
Animal cruelty is, in fact, a crime. Torture certainly classifies as cruelty.
He didn't say animal cruelty, he said people with certain psychological defects. Just because someone "gets off" on animal suffering doesn't mean that they choose to act on that impulse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @04:15PM
Well that's shocking. I never thought you, of all people, would be in favor of gun control laws.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 05 2015, @04:37PM
I am not in favor of gun control laws. If you look a little closer at what I wrote, I'm more in favor of PEOPLE CONTROL LAWS. There are people who should never be permitted to breed. There are people who should never be permitted to own a weapon. There are other people who should never be allowed to walk free. Some people belong to all three classes of people - and should just be eliminated. That is people control, not gun control.
Go get yourself a gun, Junior. The gun won't make you a man, but it can help you to grow up some.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2015, @05:10PM
> I am not in favor of gun control laws. If you look a little closer at what I wrote, I'm more in favor of PEOPLE CONTROL LAWS.
Lol. By that definition, there is no such thing as a gun control law. All laws are people control laws.
Your display of cognitive dissonance is entertaining though.