01-30-2019, 08:14 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-30-2019, 08:26 PM by heavyhorse.)
Well. Frack. If we have a legal section, sw please move this.
There's new legislation proposed: A proposed bill will make animal cruelty a federal felony. Specifically mentioning "sexually exploiting them". And it also criminalizes if the wrongdoers create and sell videos depicting the act.
https://www.cnn (dot) com/2019/01/28/us/animal-cruelty-federal-felony-bill-trnd/index.html
(Replace (dot) with " . " obviously, and open in new tab, so they can't backtrack to this site).
Text as follows:
<cite>(CNN)</cite>Two lawmakers -- a Democrat and a Republican -- have proposed a bill that will make animal cruelty a federal felony.
Congressman Ted Deutch and Vern Buchanan, both from Florida, think the PACT Act will close a gap that's existed for years.
<div style="padding:0px;">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div style="padding:0px;">
<div style="color:#262626;">
Federal law prohibits animal fighting. And it also criminalizes animal cruelty if the wrongdoers create and sell videos depicting the act.
But the PACT Act -- which stands for Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture -- will broaden the scope of prosecutors.
For instance, right now, all 50 states have laws in their books against animal cruelty on the state level. But what if the animals being tortured cross state lines?
<div style="color:#262626;">
If the bill passes, authorities can go after the wrongdoers because they have federal jurisdiction. They can also prosecute criminals if the cruelty occurs on federal property.
"This is commonsense, bipartisan legislation to bring some compassion to our animal laws," Rep. Deutch said. "We've acted in the past to stop the horrific trend of animal abuse videos; now it's time to make the underlying acts of cruelty a crime as well."
Under the PACT Act, a person can be prosecuted for crushing, burning, drowning, suffocating, and impaling animals and sexually exploiting them
.
The legislation contains exceptions for hunting.
The bill has been endorsed by the National Sheriffs Association and the Fraternal Order of Police. Those convicted under the PACT Act would face federal felony charges, fines and up to seven years in prison.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
This is not good, this is everything BUT good.. BUT, this sounds (by the language you quoted HH) more like a dig at people making, and sharing videos / 'cruelty' across state lines or crossing state lines to perform such acts (I include Bestiality with 'acts' here).
Thing is, a lot of the Maine states (New Hampshire, I believe being the biggest) and northeastern states actually have Bestiality as a Felony, and New Hampshire in particular it requires sex offense registry.
I didn't look at the whole thing, mainly what you posted: but I believe as long as you're on private property and aren't making 'content' (which was a felony anyway...) then you are charged at the state level only.
To me, this just reinforces the whole concept of 'Don't be a moron': as in, don't fuck someone else's animals, especially on their property or property that's not your own.
I really dislike the current state of these laws: but even without them you could receive some shit prosecution ('creative prosecution', being charged for something else because there's no law really against what you're doing..), the biggest one being animal cruelty.
Thanks for the info man, be careful out there guys..
Oh and if you stick to the (at least, the common one that goes around here..) 'Zoo code' you really shouldn't have many issues.
Own property, Own animal (strays.. maybe not preferred but keep it to your own property), if you're going to make porn hide your identity.. And of course, the animal always comes first.
And yet, animal abusers will run wild.
Quote:
2 hours ago, farellfoxx said:
And yet, animal abusers will run wild.
Of course, the 'Zoosadist Evidence' leak bullshit is proof of that. The laws don't stop abusers: they try to stop both 'ethical' and 'abusive' zoo.. Problem is they stop neither..
For the most part: even if people have some kind of distant good intentions behind those laws, they really boil down to moral posturing and the 'ick' factor..
This actually isn't as bad as it looks, in my opinion. It may be a bad omen, a sign that the powers that be are more against zoosexuality than ever...but we already knew that by the post-2000 recriminalization wave across all the states.
First of all, this law doesn't preempt any state laws, and only applies to interstate crime. Zoos will probably never have to deal with the legal territory this covers if they're careful. Even if the jurisdiction applies, the phrase "incapable of appraising the nature of [the sexual conduct]" (USC Title 18, Section 2242, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph A), insofar as it applies to nonhumans, is key to this act being relevant to all zoosexual behavior and not just patently abusive cruelty. If it's honestly true that nonhumans have enough mental faculties to understand sexual contact and sexual behavior (spoiler, it is), the letter of the law actually doesn't criminalize conscientious zoosexual behavior...only its spirit does.
I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me like the law could maybe succumb to a serious challenge in court. And if it did, it would be a major watershed moment. It's just a matter of properly convincing people of the truth.
Mm, nice info there. Welcome to the forum by the way. [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/smile.png[/img]/emoticons/ [email protected] 2x" title=":)" width="20" />
It is definitely a bad omen, and it was mainly the idiocy and fear of prejudice of one man that drove the recriminalization of the act itself.. A lot of creative prosecution took place in my state before the actual law was passed anyways.
The biggest problem (for me) on the subject of Bestiality / Zoophilia: What about Artificial Insemination? That's perfectly legal and involves DIRECT sexual contact with an animal... Consent or no.. So what does it matter if it's my hand, butt, mouth, or all the above? Or Female anatomy that provides outlet..? Also, what does it matter if the human enjoys the contact or not?
I agree though, I do hope people see the truth at some point. [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/smile.png[/img]/emoticons/ [email protected] 2x" title=":)" width="20" /> Life would be at least a little easier.
Quote:
19 minutes ago, WinterGreenWolf said:
Mm, nice info there. Welcome to the forum by the way. [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/smile.png[/img]/emoticons/[email protected] 2x" title=":)" width="20" />
Thank you. I have felt disheartened by the loss of a number of Zoo refuges online over the years (either physically, or in spirit), so I thought joining here might help keep some kind of flame alive. I've been trying to mentalize and work through this particular topic since the press wave a few days ago. I thought this bill was dead in 2017! Dead, I say!
If there are any sneaky, Floridian, Zoo Congressional aides floating around here, would you mind maybe "accidentally" penning a rework of the act to reference all of USC 18 Section 2242 except (2)(A)? Would be a hell of a lot less stressful that way.
Quote:
26 minutes ago, WinterGreenWolf said:
It is definitely a bad omen, and it was mainly the idiocy and fear of prejudice of one man that drove the recriminalization of the act itself.. A lot of creative prosecution took place in my state before the actual law was passed anyways.
Sad. "Creative prosecution" sounds a whole lot like Enumclaw.
Imagine being righteously angry enough at not being able to dole out punishment to a few deviants that you criminalize a whole sexuality out of spite. At least, never again will those poor prosecutors feel the sting of injustice's terrible, terrible arrow...
Quote:
36 minutes ago, WinterGreenWolf said:
The biggest problem (for me) on the subject of Bestiality / Zoophilia: What about Artificial Insemination? That's perfectly legal and involves DIRECT sexual contact with an animal... Consent or no.. So what does it matter if it's my hand, butt, mouth, or all the above? Or Female anatomy that provides outlet..? Also, what does it matter if the human enjoys the contact or not?
The hilarious kicker is that PACT too has the usual laundry list of exceptions. It's like their care ends where their wallets begin, and that's not to mention their big old buckets of political capital that they need to keep from emptying. Heaven forbid an animal welfare law with some honesty is passed for once...maybe the threat of such a thing will actually scare people into adopting some consistent principles regarding the other species in our midst. But, ah, who am I kidding?
Modern, Western folks tend to either infantilize or super anthropomorphize domestic species. Either way then, like you say, for those species you'd think they'd find the idea of literal rape and non-con impregnation (or the idea of serial non-con pregnancies until you are old and barren and your body can't physically take it anymore) to be absolutely abhorrent, like beyond R-rated body horror movie levels of bad. But whatever, that's just normal husbandry, and it's important to be making money off of your literal live stock. I mean who doesn't like making fat stacks off of their weird baby slaves who are basically homeless in our social order?
Also, whether you enjoy touching a horse's butt, regardless of whether or not the horse cares, completely and totally determines how you interact with humans. Don't you know? It totally means you'd touch the human butt when the human doesn't want you to touch it, and that makes you a disgusting asocial prick. Even though you might not even find humans attractive at all....
Quote:
1 hour ago, WinterGreenWolf said:
I agree though, I do hope people see the truth at some point. [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/smile.png[/img]/emoticons/[email protected] 2x" title=":)" width="20" /> Life would be at least a little easier.
It would be nice if people came around one day to the idea that non-human intelligence, emotion, and agency are all worth something, but I'm not going to hold my breath. And, personally, I find a sense of ease in life to be a relative thing, greatly influenced by perspective.
Also, sorry for all the dripping sarcasm, it's kind of therapeutic for me. I'm not some crazy radical, I promise...
Quote:
1 hour ago, Equilibera said:
Thank you. I have felt disheartened by the loss of a number of Zoo refuges online over the years (either physically, or in spirit), so I thought joining here might help keep some kind of flame alive. I've been trying to mentalize and work through this particular topic since the press wave a few days ago. I thought this bill was dead in 2017! Dead, I say!
There's this place, and I'm running a Zoo friendly Discord server too (myself and the admin are good friends RL, there's a thread about it in the 'General Discussion' section) if you're interested, shoot me a PM and I'll get you an invite link.
I'm not going to bother quoting and picking apart your reply, because I agree 100e+100% on this one (yes, I did use scientific notation, and yes I am a nerd. [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/biggrin.png[/img]/emoticons/ [email protected] 2x" title=":D" width="20" /> ).
Don't feel bad for being sarcastic, opinionated, or vocal with both.. I am.. A lot of the forum could probably agree to that in some cases...
Yeah, pretty much what you said.. If i were able I'd have another lover now.. I still miss my 'husband' from my youth dearly..
Oh and on the human thing, yeah... canine exclusive here. [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/smile.png[/img]/emoticons/ [email protected] 2x" title=":)" width="20" />
|
