Outlaw animal crush videos

[AnaVictoriaXO]

Please sign and share this in as many places as possible.

http://www.change.org/petitions/u-k-par ... -penalties

For anyone who doesn't watch this video:

Animal crush videos generally feature, but do not limit themselves to, small live animals, such as kittens, puppies, mice and bunnies being slowly tortured in the most horrific ways imaginable.
They are burned alive, cut with pruning sheers, nailed to the floor, skinned alive, beaten, stabbed and most often, they have their limbs crushed and broken, just to invoke more screams of agony.
The majority of these videos share a common theme, the animals are incrementally crushed by scantily clad women in high heels. Those who purchase these videos, view them for sexual gratification. Basically speaking, the animal crush interest is an atypical sexual arousal toward the the horrific torture and distress of another life-form. The sick, twisted, prurient animal crush industry has become increasingly popular all over the world. It will continue to escalate the degradation of our society if nothing is done to curtail the sadistic underground industry.
It is not as difficult as one might believe, to find websites that house animal crush video on the internet. Some mask themselves within pornography websites where minors can access these materials with the click of a mouse button. Freedom of speech has its limits when it promotes violent criminal acts and places a society in danger. Please realize that those who are capable of such acts of violent behavior, do not always limit themselves to brutality against animals.
There is nothing socially redeeming about animal crush videos or animal torture videos used for entertainment purposes and the people who produce, buy or distribute them, are simply dangerous.
Consider the effect that animal crush video has on both human and nonhuman lives in a society on a global scale. It causes a desensitization toward life, in general and whilst there are many factors that contribute to the generation of the serial killing mind, nearly all serial murderers share a common history of animal abuse, in their youth.
Child pornography is obvious violence against children and it was banned for blatantly promoting heinous, illegal acts. Films that exploit, torture and kill anything for sexual entertainment purposes have absolutely no place in a civilized society. A child can be severely emotionally damaged by these forms of depictions and that can lead to mental disorders or antisocial behavior.

 

[Just Me]

I am confused about what they want to make illegal. I would assume that animal cruelty is punishable already in the UK as it is in the US. Would it be necessary for another law or are the current laws not being enforced? Do they want to make having and distributing these videos illegal? So many questions that even with a trip to stopcrush.org is not answered fully.

Apparently, they want this treated as child pornography is treated now. I suppose I can go with that, but where does it stop? Is it ok for me to crush a spider? cockroach? rat? mouse? snake? Why does it seem to only be the cute animals that get our protection? While I applaud people with causes, I feel there is always some underlying agenda that I am missing. Why choose this cause?

why choose this cause is rhetorical, just to clarify.

 

[Nordling]

Purposefully torturing anything that's capable of feeling pain is pure evil in my book. I don't even want to see videos of insects having their limbs pulled off for prurient interest. This is the real pornography, in the old sense, and it's pure evil.

 

[JickyJuly]

I am confused about what they want to make illegal. I would assume that animal cruelty is punishable already in the UK as it is in the US. Would it be necessary for another law or are the current laws not being enforced? Do they want to make having and distributing these videos illegal? So many questions that even with a trip to stopcrush.org is not answered fully.

Apparently, they want this treated as child pornography is treated now. I suppose I can go with that, but where does it stop? Is it ok for me to crush a spider? cockroach? rat? mouse? snake? Why does it seem to only be the cute animals that get our protection? While I applaud people with causes, I feel there is always some underlying agenda that I am missing. Why choose this cause?

why choose this cause is rhetorical, just to clarify.

I think the law is more about exploitation. If you have an exterminator come in to get rid of cockroaches, you're doing so to rid your home of an issue. If you're stomping on something to get paid or get off, that's a problem. Making, distributing or owning content that is using animal abuse for sexual gratification is not comparable to smashing a cockroach.

 

[AllisonWilder]

I keep coming across insect/sea creature crush videos while searching for new things for object crush videos. This is so disgusting to me. I'm sharing it everywhere!

 

[JickyJuly]

I'm kind of surprised that there are girls who are willing to do this sort of thing. Not to stereotype us, but most of the camgirls here seem to genuinely love animals of all kinds. It's pretty amazing how often someone is discussing their newly found or adopted pet around here. I feel like the sort of woman who is open enough with her body to be nude on film would also have respect for nature and compassion for other creatures. Sorry to post again. It's just such a bummer that there are ladies who do this.

 

[AllisonWilder]

I just want to say that I've never seen a camgirl that I recognize from here, MFC, SM or any other site doing these videos. These stores are mostly labeled as "bratty girl crushes (insert poor, defenseless animal/insect/sea creature here)".

 

[bob]

i have no desire to see the vid: i am in complete agreement with the sentiments that have been expressed about crap like this

but i also find myself in agreement with Just Me: there are existent laws on the books which cover animal cruelty, and they already tend to look at mammals as more favorable creatures than snakes or bugs....the distinction the site seems to want to make is that there is a sexual component to crush videos, (suggested by their placement on child porn sites) which warrants the separate categorization of this particular kind of animal cruelty.

first of all....maybe i'm just to "normal" but i'm only seeing violence against innocence as the common ground between child porn and these vids.

however, it's the site itself that makes the comparison, and Just Me wondered about an agenda.....so

as abhorrent as this opinion might be to some of you, it strikes me that a law like the one the site favors is not only redundant, but it creates a legal environment that could conceivably challenge bestiality as an instrument of animal exploitation....

i don't believe that the site has that agenda.....but we all know that we live in a time when the notion of individual freedom is subject to both political scrutiny and religious manifestos.

personally, my emotional response to bestiality is neutral, at best....that's a whole lot more positive than my emotional response to this kind of "snuff" film, tho.....and i wouldn't mind seeing the sale or electronic distribution of these vids facing the same punishment as the act itself......but i'm concerned about any law that appears, on it's surface anyway, to be nothing but an expansion of existing statutes because of an emotional response to reprehensible behavior that is already accepted by society as being illegal.

which is exactly how most of society considers bestiality....reprehensible....and how most of society considers my oogling young women on the internet at my age.....

which i guess you might call my agenda :lol:

 

[Nordling]

I can't equate bestiality (I don't care how you categorize it--exploitation, cruelty, maltreatment, etc) to adults viewing willing adult naked people. Society be damned--if they think the naked human body is reprehensible, they are stupid.

 

[lordmagellan]

I'm thinking the law the site wants to pass has to do with production, distribution, and ownership of the videos; hence the comparison to child porn. With child porn, anyone involved in any way shape or form is considered guilty and punished- even just owning a picture is punishable.
With animal cruelty- yes, the act is punishable by law, the owning a video or distributing one is not, to my knowledge (granted I've done little research.)

I will say this- there are very few things that really piss me off or offend me, I actually use the internet to find something that will so I can try and understand my reactions from time to time. I've seen a few of these, mostly out of curiosity- "This can't mean.." These people, the ones who produce the videos, the woman in the red heels (that was in a couple I watched), they put me in a bad place. I've often questioned if I'm capable of murder and after seeing that, my thoughts veered toward "yes."


But then there are the Japanese. I've seen a few that do some truly disturbing and disgusting things for the sake of porn, and some claim, art. They've used frogs, sea cucumbers, octopus and squid, goldfish, etc. Daikichi Amano creates some fantastic, intriguing photos using dead squid or bugs and beautiful Japanese women, but he also shoots video of them doing disgusting things with other live creatures, but I've yet to see him use any mammals other than human. I find myself fascinated and disgusted at the same time. While the act, itself, is abhorrent I want to study it to try and glean some understanding of the mental process behind it. But I don't like the way I feel if I spend too much time with it, so I go away and find something else to distract my mind.

 

[Jupiter551]

what the fuck, who would have thought such videos existed? Disgusts me.

I agree with Magellan - just like child molestation is a crime, producing, distributing and possessing child pornography is likewise a series of related but different crimes.

The 'people' making these videos are already committing crimes, but it should also be illegal to access them, buy them, whatever - and I'm assuming it isn't.

 

[JickyJuly]

but i'm concerned about any law that appears, on it's surface anyway, to be nothing but an expansion of existing statutes because of an emotional response to reprehensible behavior that is already accepted by society as being illegal.

Even if you look at it from a purely emotionless and logical standpoint, it makes sense to expand the current laws to include owning and distribution. Going only on laws for animal cruelty (which are weak and laden with holes anyway), the best they can do is track down the girl who is seen in a video and press charges on her. It's not likely that she's going to have names and info about the other people involved in making the videos, and as long as her fine is less than what she made for appearing on film, it won't be a deterrent. A slap on the wrist for the "actress" isn't going to slow down the creation of this sort of thing. If police are allowed to charge people with owning and distribution, the pool that they can question and press charges against grows immensely. More people talking and trying to cover their own assess means more risk for the people making and profiting from these sorts of films.

 

[Jupiter551]

Yes, the people profiting from and demanding this kind of disgusting, evil material should be held responsible as well as those who do it - because they are creating a market for it, which in turn causes it to happen.

 

[bob]

but i'm concerned about any law that appears, on it's surface anyway, to be nothing but an expansion of existing statutes because of an emotional response to reprehensible behavior that is already accepted by society as being illegal.

Even if you look at it from a purely emotionless and logical standpoint, it makes sense to expand the current laws to include owning and distribution. Going only on laws for animal cruelty (which are weak and laden with holes anyway), the best they can do is track down the girl who is seen in a video and press charges on her. It's not likely that she's going to have names and info about the other people involved in making the videos, and as long as her fine is less than what she made for appearing on film, it won't be a deterrent. A slap on the wrist for the "actress" isn't going to slow down the creation of this sort of thing. If police are allowed to charge people with owning and distribution, the pool that they can question and press charges against grows immensely. More people talking and trying to cover their own assess means more risk for the people making and profiting from these sorts of films.

i understand....and both you and magellan make excellent points.
from the stopcrush site, however....the law passed in greece, apparently at the beginning of this year.

b. Is prohibited, except in cases of films and audiovisual material for educational purposes,the sale, marketing and presentation-trafficking through the Internet any audiovisual material such as video or other type of film or photographic material, which shows any act of violence against animals, and sexual intercourse between animals or between animals and humans for profit or sexual gratification of people who attend or participate in them.In This prohibition is also included the case of fighting between animals.

http://www.stopcrush.org/?p=1161

so, unfortunately, the question already seems to be.....is everyone ok with putting "sexual intercourse between animals or between animals and humans for profit or sexual gratification of people who attend or participate in them" in the same legal box as crush vids?

 

[JickyJuly]

but i'm concerned about any law that appears, on it's surface anyway, to be nothing but an expansion of existing statutes because of an emotional response to reprehensible behavior that is already accepted by society as being illegal.

Even if you look at it from a purely emotionless and logical standpoint, it makes sense to expand the current laws to include owning and distribution. Going only on laws for animal cruelty (which are weak and laden with holes anyway), the best they can do is track down the girl who is seen in a video and press charges on her. It's not likely that she's going to have names and info about the other people involved in making the videos, and as long as her fine is less than what she made for appearing on film, it won't be a deterrent. A slap on the wrist for the "actress" isn't going to slow down the creation of this sort of thing. If police are allowed to charge people with owning and distribution, the pool that they can question and press charges against grows immensely. More people talking and trying to cover their own assess means more risk for the people making and profiting from these sorts of films.

i understand....and both you and magellan make excellent points.
from the stopcrush site, however....the law passed in greece, apparently at the beginning of this year.

b. Is prohibited, except in cases of films and audiovisual material for educational purposes,the sale, marketing and presentation-trafficking through the Internet any audiovisual material such as video or other type of film or photographic material, which shows any act of violence against animals, and sexual intercourse between animals or between animals and humans for profit or sexual gratification of people who attend or participate in them.In This prohibition is also included the case of fighting between animals.

http://www.stopcrush.org/?p=1161

so, unfortunately, the question already seems to be.....is everyone ok with putting "sexual intercourse between animals or between animals and humans for profit or sexual gratification of people who attend or participate in them" in the same legal box as crush vids?

They're both exploiting animals (creatures that can neither consent nor seek justice for themselves) for sexual gratification and/or financial gains. So, yes. They belong in the same box. If one is worse than the other which is it? Getting raped by an animal not even of your own species or getting stomped on? I'm not sure if laws involving bestiality differ by state, but I do know that in both Tennessee and Georgia distributing or owning porn that depicts animals is illegal. The company I worked for stopped selling a special edition of The Devil in Miss Jones because the cover had a snake on it for fear of trouble.

 

[Bocefish]

WOW! There are some seriously fucked up people out there if they get off on that sort of thing. It's hard to believe that is not already illegal, but people go to jail for kissing in public or even just saying something possibly offensive in public.

 

[bob]

cool JJ...(i'm not calling you jicky or july )
.....one way to stop the commercialization and promotion of crush vids is to stop the commercialization and promotion of all animal exploitation, including military and product testing applications....which is in fact part of the stated mission of the site which hosts stopcrush.org.

one reason i've made an issue out of this is because of the "crush on horses" thread....which was never intended to be about bestiality, but veered off on that tangent....and felt to me like it had a lot of people squirming in their chairs as they posted, trying to get back on topic.

there is an entire spectrum of exploitation, and the relationship between violence and sexuality is not too far apart in a lot of instances....i'm probably nitpicking here, but neglecting an animal that you "own" (meaning that you have accepted responsibility for its care and -it is assumed- have certain feelings of affection towards) is exploitation by omission....bestiality is exploitation by inclusion, in my mind, extending those feelings of affection to a selfishness where one's power to dominate, or submit to, mammalian instinctual behavior, makes it ok....the only difference of course, is that animals cannot construct a logical form of consent -and presumably there can be no safe word.

but the idea of genuine affection and genuine arousal exists for some, i'm sure....and that's why i remain emotionally neutral on the subject.....

at what point do we, as a civilized society, have the right to intercede legally in the thought processes and emotional makeup of the individual?....where other humans are violated or otherwise exploited....that generally goes without saying....where animals are exploited through neglect or used to fulfill our violent perversions, as well.

and while i personally agree that the exploitation of animals for profit through the distribution of vids should be inclusive of bestiality, i'm not at all sure that the stigmas associated with pedofilia, child porn, and crush videos puts using an animal sexually on that same place along that spectrum of legally defined exploitation.

if it does, then the discussion is more than just a legal one.....it's begins to define a social morality, imo.

 

[theguitarrist]

What are they pushing? This is the answer. You can find it in the last paragraph of the petition letter, at the bottom of the website that was posted:

We ask that you draft and enact legislation similar to the Animal Crush Prohibition Act of 2010 in the United States, which enforces a harsh penalty of up to 7 years in prison and a hefty fine for anyone who produces/creates, sells/distributes, purchases or owns animal crush video.

And I agree. I think that laws against animal cruelty are made to prevent people from hurting animals privately. Unfortunately, if there are people getting profit from these activities, I think that stronger laws could be required. Maybe this is equivalent to those people who organize illegal fights between animals.
Of course, stronger laws don't mean that the crush videos will diminish (same reason why I am against dead penalty), but still, you need to show the society that if privately hurt an animal is bad, making profit from it is worse.

Btw, I can't believe this fetish. I mean, it really really made me sick.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

but i'm concerned about any law that appears, on it's surface anyway, to be nothing but an expansion of existing statutes because of an emotional response to reprehensible behavior that is already accepted by society as being illegal.

Even if you look at it from a purely emotionless and logical standpoint, it makes sense to expand the current laws to include owning and distribution. Going only on laws for animal cruelty (which are weak and laden with holes anyway), the best they can do is track down the girl who is seen in a video and press charges on her. It's not likely that she's going to have names and info about the other people involved in making the videos, and as long as her fine is less than what she made for appearing on film, it won't be a deterrent. A slap on the wrist for the "actress" isn't going to slow down the creation of this sort of thing. If police are allowed to charge people with owning and distribution, the pool that they can question and press charges against grows immensely. More people talking and trying to cover their own assess means more risk for the people making and profiting from these sorts of films.

I agree the practice is despicable and I do wonder what type of sick puppy get off watching much less making this kind of filth. That said, the US law is pretty much settled on this issue and is very unlikely to change. Back in April 2010, the US Supreme Court struck down by a vote of 8-1, a 1999 law that made creation, distribution, and OWNING of animal crush videos illegal. You can read the opinion here http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf. But essentially what SCOTUS ruled was that section of 1999 law which made owning these video illegal violated the freedom of speech clause of the 1st amendment. The court is pretty consistent in 1st amendment cases, the same 8 justices upheld the right of the Westboro Baptist church members to shout their hateful anti-gay slogans at the funerals of fallen servicemen. That is the bad news for animal lovers.

The good news is Congress acting with remarkable speed (for Congress) actually passed a animal crush video law, that was signed by President Obama in Dec 2010. The law makes illegal to produce, or distribute these video punishable by up to 7 years in jail. However, owning them is legal. On a practical level, this means you couldn't distribute videos on a US site like MFC. However, you could obtain these videos from an overseas website and then share them with your sicko friends.

To be honest, I don't think lawmakers in other countries are going to pay much attention to petitions signed by US citizens. Donations to Humane Society International or PETA is probably more effective.