Remove Animal Remove Animal Cruelty Remove Ethics Remove illegal
article thumbnail

The Florida FWC illegally killed 34 pythons and one 10-year-old pregnant Boa constrictor

Reddit Animals

This put Coffee in an impossible position - he needed to rehome the pythons because they were illegal in Florida, but the FWC was threatening to face him with additional criminal charges if he did so. Reptiles that are not treated ethically simply do not make good pets. Their behavior is very, very dependent upon how they are treated.

Pythons 40
article thumbnail

Freedom of Speech

Animal Ethics

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment protects depictions of animal cruelty. This does not mean that it protects animal cruelty, which is (and ought to be) illegal in every state.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

On Trial: Animal Torture Videos vs. Free Speech

Animal Ethics

Code, Title 18.48, made it a federal crime to knowingly create, sell, or possess a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain. It was enacted to prevent helpless innocent animals from being tortured to death. I don’t think so. Code, Title 18.48

article thumbnail

Environmental Groups Call For End To USDA Wildlife Killing

Critter News

From WildEarth Guardians: WildEarth Guardians’ research reveals this agency is: • Biologically Unsound - Wildlife Services uses a “sledgehammer approach” to wildlife management, meaning over one million animals are killed each year using non-selective killing controls such as poisons, traps, and aerial gunning.

Killing 100
article thumbnail

From Today's New York Times

Animal Ethics

To the Editor: Re “ Disgusting but Not Illegal ” (editorial, Aug. 2): We disagree with your contention that the First Amendment protects animal “crush” videos. Stevens , the Supreme Court last year overturned a 1999 law banning depictions of animal cruelty on the grounds of overbreadth. In United States v.

article thumbnail

From Today's New York Times

Animal Ethics

To the Editor: Re “ Animal Cruelty and Free Speech ” (editorial, Oct. The law speaks specifically and narrowly to the distribution for profit of videos that show illegal acts of cruelty actually being performed on live animals (my italics). Why are “crush videos” involving animals any different?