Source: http://animalblawg.wordpress.com/tag/peta/
Timestamp: 2014-04-18 13:05:39
Document Index: 324443141

Matched Legal Cases: ['in fine', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 48', '§ 48', 'art 2']

PETA | Animal Blawg
Posted on December 2, 2013 by David	Nicole Geraci
Filed under: animal law | Tagged: animal abuse, animal law, animal welfare, Blackfish, PETA, SeaWorld | 2 Comments »	Buddhist Inmate Denied Vegetarian Diet
Posted on September 4, 2013 by Seth	Seth Victor
Filed under: animal law, animal law education, diet, veganism, vegetarianism | Tagged: Buddhisim, Connecticut, Corrigan-Radgowski, fish, meat, PETA, prison, prison rights, veganism, vegetarianism | 11 Comments »	Legal Issues with California’s Foie Gras Ban
Posted on December 13, 2012 by Seth	Seth Victor
Filed under: animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal ethics, animal law, animal rights, animal welfare, diet, factory farms, veganism, vegetarianism | Tagged: "THE Burger", activism, animal abuse, animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal ethics, animal law, animal rights, animal suffering, animal welfare, animals, CAFOS, california, Constitutional Law, environmental law, factory farms, farmed animals, foie gras, foie gras ban, Hot's Kitchen, meat, PETA, vegan, veganism, vegetarianism | 1 Comment »	Bullfighting: Justifying Cruelty with Tradition
Posted on September 22, 2012 by spencelo	Spencer Lo
The judges on France’s Constitutional Council, a 9 member body, ruled yesterday that bullfighting does not contravene the constitution, rejecting a challenge by the animal-rights group CRAC who seeks to ban the practice nationwide. Although bullfighting is prohibited in certain parts of France, the tradition has remained popular in the south – particularly in the Nimes and Arles areas – for the past 150 years. Professor Diane Marie Amann offered a brief analysis of the Council’s ruling here. CRAC contended that an exception contained in the country’s criminal code which explicitly protected bullfighting—if it occurs in regions “where an uninterrupted local tradition can be invoked”—violates equal protection principles (“The law…must be the same for everyone, with respect to protection as well as to punishment”). In other words, because bullfighting is prohibited in some areas on animal cruelty grounds, the same practice should be prohibited everywhere, otherwise unequal treatment would result. Rejecting this argument, the judges affirmed the tradition exception as constitutionally permissible. But the decision raises the obvious question, what’s so special about tradition? Why should entrenched cultural traditions, however humanly significant, take precedent over the welfare-interests of animals? Read more
Filed under: animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal ethics, animal law, animal rights, animal welfare | Tagged: animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal ethics, animal law, animal rights, animal torture, animal welfare, art, bullfighting, bulls, estoque, Hemingway, matador, PETA, picadors | 42 Comments »	Kansas State Fair’s Restrictions on PETA are Upheld
Posted on September 12, 2012 by Adonia David	Adonia David
Filed under: animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal law, animal rights, animal welfare, Uncategorized | Tagged: animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal suffering, animal welfare, animals, farmed animals, free speech, Kansas, PETA, state fairs | 4 Comments »	Meat by any other name would be as troubling
Posted on April 22, 2012 by Seth	Seth Victor
Humans have been flirting with the idea of lab-grown, or in vitro meat for a while. We’ve commented about it previously here. PETA has a standing offer of a $1 million monetary incentive for the first successful synthetic meat that can find its way to supermarket shelves. Yesterday, FT Magazine ran a feature by William Little about a lab in the Netherlands that is poised to take the big step between the laboratory and the cash register, though that step is still years away.
As usual, many of the problems surrounding this concept have been revealed through humor. Thank you, Mr. Colbert. But it isn’t the public’s perception that I worried about as I read Mr. Little’s article. It’s the viability of this process. I’ve read articles touting the benefits of lab meat, including reduced pollution and less consumption of natural resources, if the process is profitable. I’m not arguing that replacing the CAFO system we currently employ for our meals isn’t admirable. I just question whether this is the way to do it, and if we aren’t just creating a new monster.
Filed under: animal cruelty, animal ethics, animal experimentation, animal rights, climate change, environmental ethics, factory farms | Tagged: animal advocacy, animal ethics, animal experimentation, animal law, animal rights, animal suffering, animal welfare, animals, CAFOS, environmental ethics, factory farms, industrial farming, PETA, veganism, vegetarianism | 2 Comments »	Is PETA v. SeaWorld a Bad Idea?
Filed under: animal advocacy, animal law | Tagged: 13th Amendment, animal abuse, animal advocacy, animal law, animal rights, animal welfare, PETA, SeaWorld, slavery, Steven Wise | 20 Comments »	Elephant Death at San Diego Zoo Launches Calls for a USDA Investigation
Filed under: animal advocacy, animal ethics, animal welfare | Tagged: elephants, In Defense of Animals, PETA, San Diego Zoo, USDA, zoos | 6 Comments »	Civil Penalties Assessed Against Feld Entertainment (Ringling Bros.)
Posted on December 9, 2011 by David	Sarah Markham
A strong message of against animal cruelty has been delivered to the public, especially those who exhibit animals for profit, with the assessment of civil penalties against the Ringling Brothers. On November 28, the owner of Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, Field Entertainment, Inc., paid $270,000 in fines for violations of Animal Welfare Act pursuant to an agreement that have been reached with USDA.
The Animal Welfare Act requires that minimum standards of care be provided for animals exhibited to the public. PETA repeatedly urged the USDA to take action against Ringling Brothers for numerous violations of the Animal Welfare Act. In 2009, PETA led an undercover investigation to reveal “the saddest show on earth,” which included the exhibited animals being struck with bull hooks. In August of this year, an elephant ‘stumbled’ according to Ringling Brothers, but an eyewitness believed the elephant collapsed when the handlers were moving her. Continue reading →
Filed under: animal cruelty, animal law, circuses | Tagged: animal abuse, animal cruelty, Animal exploitation, animal law, animal welfare act, circuses, Feld Entertainment, PETA, Ringling Brothers | 4 Comments »	Dolphins Dead Following Rave at Swiss Aquarium
Posted on December 7, 2011 by David	Josh Loring
Police are investigating the deaths of two dolphins from a Swiss aquarium. The dolphins died following a techno rave that was held at the facility earlier this month. The first dolphin, Shadow, was found dead directly following the event, which led experts to suspect the cause of death was stress related due to the deafening music being played in close proximity.
It has been well documented that loud music is known to bother dolphins and other marine mammals in captivity who navigate by echolocation, which entails bouncing sonar waves off other objects to determine location, shape and distance. The confined tank walls create an environment where the reverberations from their own sonar cause great stress. Back in October, Senior Vice President of PETA, Dan Matthews, attended a fundraiser at the Georgia aquarium and witnessed the effect first hand. While observing beluga whales, he witnessed one “squirming and twisting” more than the others. He asked one of the aquarium staff members whether the music bothered them, which she replied, “Well, yes. Especially the males―as soon as the music starts pounding, they go nuts and start attacking the harbor seals in the tanks.” Continue reading →
Filed under: animal law, animal welfare | Tagged: animal abuse, animal law, animal suffering, animal welfare, aquariums, aquatic mammals, dolphins, PETA | 5 Comments »	Workers Caught Harming Hens
Filed under: animal law, animal welfare, factory farms | Tagged: animal abuse, animal cruelty, animal law, animal suffering, animal welfare, battery cages, factory farms, farmed animals, Humane Society, industrial farming, McDonalds, PETA, Sparboe, Target | 2 Comments »	McDonald’s and Target Drop their Relationship with their Egg-Supplier, Sparboe Farms
Posted on November 25, 2011 by David	Heather Schlemm
Mercy for Animals revealed an undercover video of five egg producing farms in three states that both McDonald’s and Target purchase from. Mercy for Animals had its people hired at Sparboe farms and wired them with hidden cameras from May 23rd to August 1st to document the animal abuse occurring. Sparboe Farms is one of the nation’s largest egg suppliers and has facilities in Iowa, Minnesota, and Colorado. Target Corp. was purchasing from the Litchfield Minnesota one and has now agreed to pull all eggs from this farm off its shelves. Target claims to have just been made aware of the facilities conditions and that is why they are immediately stopping their purchases. McDonald’s had purchased from the Vicent, Iowa plant for all its west locations and now says it will never work with Sparboe again. McDonald’s and Target released full statements on their decision to stop using Sparboe. Continue reading →
Filed under: animal law, animal welfare | Tagged: animal abuse, animal law, animal suffering, animal welfare, battery cages, egg production, factory farms, farmed animals, industrial farming, Mercy for Animals, PETA, Sparboe, Target | 2 Comments »	The Slavery of Animals
Posted on October 27, 2011 by David	Travis Brown
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is bringing suit on behalf of five orca whale plaintiffs against SeaWorld this week in the United States District Court located in San Diego, California. The suit, acknowledged to be unlikely to succeed, seeks to expand the boundaries of current animal rights. The basis of the claim is a rather progressive one. PETA is asking the District Court to grant constitutional protection to the whales predicated upon the Thirteenth Amendment ban on slavery. The group maintains that the Amendment does not solely apply to humans, and that the whales being kept within the parks and used solely for breeding and human entertainment is tantamount to such unconstitutional servitude. Jeffrey Kerr, the general counsel for PETA stated that, “Slavery is slavery, and it does not depend on the species of the slave any more than it depends on gender, race, or religion.”
Filed under: animal law | Tagged: 13th Amendment, animal advocacy, animal ethics, animal law, animal rights, orcas, PETA, SeaWorld, slavery | 3 Comments »	University of Wisconsin is Violating the Honor Code, Oh and Animal Welfare Laws
According to the Cap Times, scientists at colleges and universities were granted these protections June 3 by the Joint Finance Committee in measure No. 27 in this omnibus motion, which deals mostly with UW System budget issues. No. 27 is disguised in language which demonstrates UW’s new freedoms and flexibilities state campuses were awarded from state oversight. This measure received no public review, comment or feedback. Continue reading →
Filed under: animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal law | Tagged: animal abuse, animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal ethics, animal experimentation, animal law, animal rights, animal suffering, animal welfare, PETA, University of Wisconsin, University System Omnibus Motion, UW-Madison, vivisection, Wisconsin | 4 Comments »	The Agribusiness Lobby Wins Again
Well, there go the rights of farmed animals and whistleblowers in Iowa. On March 17, 2011, the Republican-dominated Iowa House of Representative voted 65-27 to approve a bill criminalizing secretly recording factory farm practices. Under the bill, House File 589 § 9, drolly named “Animal Facility Interference,” any person who produces, possesses or distributes an audio or visual recording of an animal facility without the consent of the owner is guilty of either a class D felony or aggravated misdemeanor. The bill still has to pass through the Democrat-controlled Senate before officially becoming Iowa law, but with similar proposals popping up in other states including Florida, the idea of prohibiting these exposé recordings is picking up steam. Continue reading →
Filed under: animal welfare, factory farms | Tagged: animal abuse, animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal ethics, animal law, animal welfare, criminalizing video-recording, factory farms, farmed animals, First Amendment, HSUS, industrial farming, Iowa, Iowa House File 589 § 9, PETA | 10 Comments »	“Petrie-Pork”: The Future for Meatatarians?
Posted on February 3, 2011 by David	Rosana Escobar Brown
Filed under: animal ethics, Uncategorized | Tagged: animal ethics, animal welfare, farmed animals, food safety, lab-created meat, man-made meat, meat, meat consumption, meat production, pain-free meat, PETA | Leave a comment »	North Dakota Measure 2 — Canned Hunting Contextualized
Posted on November 2, 2010 by David	David Cassuto
Filed under: animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal ethics, animal law | Tagged: animal advocacy, animal agriculture, animal ethics, animal law, animal rights, animal welfare, canned hunts, farmed animals, HSUS, hunting, industrial farming, Measure 2, North Dakota, North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase, PETA | 7 Comments »	`Octomom´ Nadya Suleman is the New PETA Poster Child
Filed under: animal advocacy, animal ethics, animal welfare, spay/neuter, Uncategorized | Tagged: animal advocacy, animal ethics, animal law, animal rights, animal welfare, class, eugenics, feminism, gender, gendered ethics, Nadaya Suleman, Octomom, PETA, race, reality tv, spay-neuter ethics, spay/neuter | 4 Comments »	Justice for Sheep
Posted on April 14, 2010 by David	David Cassuto
Filed under: animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal ethics, animal experimentation, animal law, animal welfare, vivisection | Tagged: Alliance for Animals, animal abuse, animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal ethics, animal experimentation, animal law, animal suffering, animal welfare, hyperbaric chambers, PETA, sheep, sheep decompression, sheep experimentation, University of Wisconsin, vivisection, Wisconsin | 3 Comments »	Thinking About Animal Law
Posted on March 7, 2010 by David	Bruce Wagman
Filed under: animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal ethics, animal hoarding, animal law, animal welfare | Tagged: ALDF, All Creatures Great & Small, animal abuse, animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal ethics, animal hoarding, animal law, animal litigation, animal suffering, animal welfare, animals, Cavel v. Madigan, Chesley Morton v. Georgia Dept. of Agriculture, Chris Freeman, HSUS, Pearl Jam, PETA, Schiff Hardin LLP, Walter Bush | 11 Comments »	The Animated Fried Fish: The Latest Development in Animal Cruelty
Posted on December 18, 2009 by David	Irina Knopp
Tired of those boring fish in the lake and that bland fried fillet you had at the local fast food restaurant? Well come on down to China and combine the two! Get the fun of torturing a live fish with the satisfaction of getting to eat it at the same time!
Sarcastic venting aside, a video has been circulating Youtube depicting a fish that was fried alive. The fish remains living for a few minutes after it is put on the plate. In the background you can hear the people at the table giggling as they poke the fish that is desperately gasping for air (or asking for someone to put it out of its misery?). Continue reading →
Filed under: animal cruelty, animal ethics, animal welfare, fishing | Tagged: animal abuse, animal ethics, animal suffering, animal welfare, carp, diet, fish, fried fish, fried fish still alive, PETA | 7 Comments »	“BatManu”
Posted on November 17, 2009 by David	Stephen Iannacone
On Halloween night, Manu Ginobili, a shooting guard for the San Antonio Spurs, swatted down a bat that got loose in the AT&T Center. The bat had been loose for most of the game and after several failed attempts by the Spur’s mascot to catch the bat in a net, Ginobili got close enough to hit and kill it. After the game, Ginobili said: “I didn’t think it was a big deal. Then the whole arena started chanting my name” and also referred to the bat as a “just a mouse with wings.” The Spurs’ head coach noted, “He’s never ceased to amaze me the years he’s been here. … He just did it again.” Some reports even suggest that this may be one of Ginobili’s “greatest athletic achievements” next to winning a gold medal in the Olympics and an NBA Championship. Highlights on ESPN replayed the clip over and over in order to brag about his great reflexes. Reports also say that the real burden is on Ginobili, because he now has to go through a series of rabies shots. Does this seem wrong to anyone? An entire stadium cheering over the death of a defenseless creature and giving praise to this person as if he has accomplished something great.
Filed under: animal advocacy, animal law | Tagged: animal advocacy, animal law, animal welfare, bats, Manu Ginobli, PETA, San Antonio Spurs | 2 Comments »	Can U.S. v Stevens Bite Back?
Posted on November 9, 2009 by David	Irina Knopp
I am currently working on a paper that looks at the case, arguments for and possible consequences of U.S. v Stevens. Recently, I’ve found several articles online suggesting that the statute in the case thought to promote animal rights in America could possibly hurt animal rights groups.
Rory Eastburg, author of the article “High Court to Consider Categorical Ban on Cruelty Images,” warns that animal rights groups should be very careful what they wish for because such groups often use film and images to expose the animal abuses that go on and the vague exemption for serious content in 18 U.S.C. § 48 may get them in trouble.
He states, “Many if not all films made by such groups falls squarely within the terms of the statute because they are recording unlawful treatment of animals.” Eastburg fails to explain how animal rights group videos/images would fall under the interstate commerce element of 18 U.S.C. § 48.
Filed under: animal law | Tagged: AETA, animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal law, crush videos, Julie Hilden, PETA, Rory Eastburg, U.S. v. Stevens | Leave a comment »	You Would Never Raise Your Voice to Your Mother…
Posted on October 8, 2009 by David	Sandra Mekita
Filed under: animal advocacy | Tagged: animal advocacy, animal rights, environmental advocacy, Gay Rights, PETA, Sherry Colb | 3 Comments »	Mansploitation for the Animal Cause
Posted on September 25, 2009 by David	September 24th, 2009 image source: The Stranger, Sep 24 – 30, 2009, Vol. 19, No. 3
Ummm…this Seattle alt paper (think Village Voice, left-coast style) takes a page from PETA’s playbook (see here, e.g.) and then flips it, exploiting men’s bods for the animal cause. That’s not ok, either. The image is an interesting visual play on an affectionate name for a cat and a (sometimes-not-so-affectionate) name for a woman’s genitalia. I imagine the guy out in front of a pet store saying, “Look at my ….” -Bridget Crawford
Filed under: animal advocacy | Tagged: activism, animal advocacy, feminism, PETA, sexism | Leave a comment »	PETA’s Use of Women
Posted on August 31, 2009 by David	PETA takes a lot of grief from the animal advocacy community and from feminists for its use of naked or sparsely clad women in its public events. This blogger offers a contrasting view. For my part, though I find the controversy surrounding PETA’s methods interesting and worth having, I worry that the resulting schisms in the animal advocacy community undermine the movement.
Filed under: animal advocacy | Tagged: animal advocacy, animal law, animal welfare, feminism, PETA | 6 Comments »	Taking Animal Advocacy Seriously (Part 2 of 3)
Posted on June 29, 2009 by animalblawg	A couple of months ago I wrote a post on why it is that people fail to take animal advocacy seriously. Today I want to elaborate that claim by illustrating it with a recent example. As most readers of AnimalBlawg probably know, President Obama swatted a fly during an interview with John Hardwood several weeks ago. Most viewers and commentators believed the episode was kind of funny. The President was amused by the event and commented on his Miyagi type ability to kill a fly with just one quick hand movement.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: activism, animal abuse, animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal law, animal rights, animal suffering, factory farms, obama, PETA | 5 Comments »	PETA and . . . Michael Vick
Posted on May 1, 2009 by David	PETA continues to break new ground in the unusual approach to animal advocacy sweepstakes. Apparently, Micheal Vick is in talks with PETA to become a spokesperson for the organization. We can interpret Vick’s motives in a number of ways. Perhaps he has rehabilitated himself and developed a love (or at least respect) for animals while in prison and now wants to help steer others toward the path of righteousness. One might suspect, however, that since he has lost everything, is still young, and hopes to resume playing pro football, his reasons might smack more of opportunism than altruism.
Ultimately, I don’t know that it matters because [heaven help me] I think it’s a good idea. First, Vick can reach a constituency that typical animal welfare PSAs don’t normally impact. Second, he is bound to attempt to rehabilitate his image somehow; why not like this? And third, I seriously doubt that the NFL will gauge whether to allow him back into the league based on whether he did volunteer work for PETA. So heck; go for it, I say.
UPDATE: PETA withdrew from these negotiations some time ago after learning that Vick had enjoyed putting family pets in the ring with fightingdogs. According to a PETA spokesperson:
Filed under: animal cruelty | Tagged: animal abuse, animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal suffering, animal welfare, dog fighting, Michael Vick, PETA | 2 Comments »	Babies and Pigs in Diapers
Posted on May 1, 2009 by David	Nadya Suleman, the California mother of 14 children, has said in a recent news interview that she is considering adopting a pet pig and/or a small dog. PETA is urging Ms. Suleman to refrain. According to PETA, a representative of that organization sent Ms. Suleman an e-mail dated April 27, 2009 (this is a copy, PETA says):
We’re writing to you today after reading an interview in which you said that you would like to buy a pig and a dog for your children. In today’s uncertain economy—and with all the demands that come with raising 14 children—we urge you to reconsider adding two more dependents to your family. Like children, pigs and dogs are intelligent, social beings with complex needs. They require a lot of attention, space, and exercise as well as a huge financial commitment.
You also said that you would keep the pig outside because of “the smell.” Keeping a pig outside and making him or her a playmate for your children—who do not understand a pig’s many needs and will only pay attention to him or her when it suits them—is not an acceptable way to treat an intelligent animal such as this.
Apart from the letter’s breezy “Dear Nadya” (followed by a comma, not a colon — a peeve of mine), its public judgment — of what I think should be a private matter — bothered me the most. Yes, yes, the personal is political, the political is personal, etc. etc. But still, isn’t it for each person or family or household to decide whether to welcome a companion animal? For many animal rights activists, I appreciate that the answer is a resounding, “No,” just as for many opponents of abortion, it shouldn’t be for each woman to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term. I agree that having 14 children does not seem to be a smooth route to health, happiness or financial security. Adding a pig or a dog wouldn’t make that route any smoother. But in the end, I would leave it to Ms. Suleman to decide.
The PETA letter doesn’t mention concerns about animal hoarding (an indication of a real psychological problem). But there persists a way (blogged here) in which of Ms. Suleman is viewed as an abnormal “hoarder” — first of children and potentially now of animals, as well.
(H/T Amanda Ambrose)
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: abortion, animal advocacy, animal ethics, animal hoarding, animal rights, animal welfare, Nadya Suleman, PETA, pets, pigs | 2 Comments »	Abusing Animals and Language
Posted on November 11, 2008 by animalblawg	Reports of animal abuse at industrial operations are so frequent that they attract less and less notice. This recent abuse of pigs at an Iowa swine facility, revealed through a covert PETA video is but one of many such tragic instances. And, of course, the facility reacted with shock and sadness that such events could and did occur at their operation, dedicated as it is to humane practices and a zero-tolerance policy with respect to abuse. And, perhaps we should take an equally jaundiced view of the fact that some of the people allegedly involved in the abuse continue to work at the facility (see this story in the SF Chronicle).
I wonder if it is because I am so jaded and weary that a good part of my outrage stems from the fact that such facilities can call themselves “farms.” When language degrades, behavior is swift to follow. As our language shifts to accommodate the new realities of the animal industry, we must not lose the battle over the vocabulary used to describe it.
Orwell was right; words matter. Sometimes they are all that does.
Filed under: animal ethics, animal law, animal welfare, factory farms, Uncategorized | Tagged: animal abuse, animal ethics, animal law, industrial farming, Orwell, PETA, Politics & the English Language | Leave a comment »	What’s Wrong With Dissection Anyway?
Filed under: animal cruelty, Uncategorized | Tagged: cutout dissection.com, dissection, National Science Teachers Association, PETA, wrongfulness | 3 Comments »	Recent Posts