Critter News
APRIL 23, 2009
Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia voted 10 to 3 last summer to find unconstitutional the rarely used law passed by Congress in 1999. The appeals court noted that the Supreme Court is resistant to removing First Amendment protections of depictions even of illegal actions. Thanks to Animal Law Online for the catch.
10,000 Birds
NOVEMBER 3, 2016
But their lawyers argued that prosecutors did not prove that the group had engaged in an illegal conspiracy that kept federal workers — employees of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management — from doing their jobs. It’s about putting the Federal Government back into the confines of the law.”. Are you kidding me?
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
10,000 Birds
JUNE 20, 2012
It is illegal for any person to take, possess, transport, sell, or purchase them or their parts, such as feathers, nests, or eggs, without a permit. Because IT IS ILLEGAL TO INTERFERE WITH NESTING BIRDS!! Herein lies the problem. As a result, certain activities affecting swallows are subject to legal restrictions 1.
Animal Ethics
OCTOBER 6, 2009
At issue in the case is the constitutionality of a decade old law passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1999. That law, U.S. The law also made it a crime to sell videos in which animals were tortured to death by being burned alive, as well as videos of illegal dog fights. Today, the U.S.
Critter News
OCTOBER 17, 2009
The law, since revised, aimed to protect animal research laboratories from illegal, sometimes violent protests. The company had been a target of animal activists since video footage surfaced on television in the 1990s depicting animal abuse at its laboratory in the United Kingdom.
Animal Ethics
AUGUST 11, 2010
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.
Animal Ethics
OCTOBER 9, 2009
6): I do not agree that “anyone with an appreciation for the First Amendment” must conclude that “crush videos” or videos of vicious dogfights are protected speech and that the federal law in question should therefore be struck down. In the case of dogfighting and “crush videos,” cruelty is not just promoted, but staged.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
100 
Let's personalize your content