Why Should This Photo Be Illegal?

Awesome RULING!!!! Now them pics of me kickin' little cuddly kitties, fish with their face near ripped free from my tuggin' on the hook are safe!!! Not to mention images of hogs with bulldogs hanging from each ear with a curr dog on their rump are protected as they should be!!!:D
Brent
 
Watching those hunting shows back on TNN years and years ago actually gave me a feeling of what goes on in the hunters mind.
One show I saw, the host brought his 11yr old son out with him. the son got a buck. It took him 2 shots, he didn't hit at "the kill point".
So the Host was up with the buck and his son and explained to the camera as well as his son about respecting the animal's rights. So as yes it was game, and was hunted and killed for food (and display I'm sure), but the respect came that the animal should never EVER suffer and that the body must be respected as well because you don't want to shoot an animal full of holes to watch it suffer as it dies. You want it to be killed in 1 shot and not feel anything as it passes.
I was pretty amazed at that philosophy and have never forgot that. I doubt I'll ever go game hunting, but if I ever did, I'd make sure to respect that animal, for it will be feeding my family as well as possibly providing other means for survival.
 
I have no problem with the banning of pictures showing animal cruelty. The original picture does not show any such thing. For all practical purposes, it shows a guy with a gun and a flying bird. No act of cruelty has occurred in any form.

For that matter, if a picture does show that an animal has been killed, it would be up to those pressing charges that the particular animal was killed in a cruel manner which would involve some onsight forensics, I would believe.
 
What if PETA wanted to show the butchering of baby seals with clubs in a documentary? They would likely be breaking the law showing a "cruel" death. And, if you say it's okay for some purposes but not others, you are regulating speech because of it's purpose. Then it would be okay to ban flag burning as a protest but allow it when destroying one out of respect when it becomes worn.
 
Cruelty to animals is pretty vague and that's probably where this case failed.

The prosecutors should have tried a version of people not being able to profit from illegal acts after the fact. Like Mark Chapman or John Hinckley not being able to profit from books about their deeds.

There are some interesting ramifications to the verdict. What other illegal acts can be legally filmed and marketed?
 
I was watching a show yesterday on which a guy with a bow shot a deer, which took about two hops and then fell dead. Getting the opportunity to make that shot and actually doing it are not easy, so it's an impressive skill to me. Why was I watching it? I dunno, best thing on and I was eating my lunch in front of a TV.
 
Last night, I watched Robot Chicken that had a segment on 'weasel stomping day'. It was claymation. Weasels were stomped by folks with big boots.

Thus, the law would have protected us from the evils of satirical claymation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top