Home / Animal Rights / Headlines


January 7, 2009
printable version email to a friend join our e-mail list


Animal Rights Leaders Should Be Careful What They Wish For

Animal Rights Leaders Should Be Careful What They Wish For

According to a story appearing in the New York Times this week, the U.S. Supreme Court may soon hear an unusual First Amendment case that could put some high-profile animal rights groups out of business. And they don't even seem to see it coming. The case surrounds a 1999 federal law that criminalized the creation, sale, or possession of videos and photos depicting animal cruelty for commercial gain. The law has since been struck down, but now the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is rallying support to restore it because it made distributing dogfighting videos and (truly bizarre) animal "crush" videos illegal. We have just one question: Is fundraising to foot the bill for six-figure activist salaries considered "commercial gain"?

HSUS and its lesser sibling, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), routinely use videos of animal cruelty to disgust donors into opening their wallets. Every year, the two animal rights organizations use the shock value of undercover slaughterhouse footage and seal-hunting videos (to name just a few categories) in order to raise their $165 million in combined budgets. That's where the six-figure salaries come in -- HSUS president Wayne Pacelle, for instance, makes $234,000 in salary and benefits.

Fair is fair. If the Supreme Court wants to ban the distribution of some profitable depictions of animal cruelty, it's also appropriate for HSUS and PETA to cease their own macabre fundraising blitzes. Should the contested law be resurrected, much of what the groups peddle on their websites could be illegal.

Consider, on the one hand, a dogfighting film or a sexually prurient video of furry animals being crushed to death. On the other, footage showing an uncommon slaughterhouse worker illegally abusing livestock animals. These activities are all illegal. The law can't -- and shouldn't -- allow anyone to claim that one is objectionable while another is "motivating" or "eye-opening."

Animal rights leaders should be careful what they wish for. If HSUS and PETA truly want these images kept out of the public eye, they should start by cleaning up their own offensive propaganda films first.

"What's good for the goose," the saying goes.

email us comments




printable version email to a friend join our e-mail list

Daily Headlines

  • Vegetarian Book Makes Meatless Arguments
    Posted On: Thursday 11/5/2009
  • Marley and Meat
    Posted On: Tuesday 11/3/2009
  • Quote of the Week
    Posted On: Friday 10/30/2009
  • “Physicians Committee” Abuses the Law. Again.
    Posted On: Thursday 10/29/2009
  • Cracking the Shell of Animal Rights Activism
    Posted On: Monday 10/26/2009
  • Meet the Animal Rights Movement’s Rich Aunt
    Posted On: Thursday 10/22/2009
  • PETA Stunts Are Still Trashy
    Posted On: Wednesday 10/14/2009


  • Activist Cash

    Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
    Background | Quotes | Financials
    While PCRM presents itself as a doctor-supported, unbiased source of health guidance, the group’s own literature admits that 95 percent of its members have no medical degrees. read more here »

    People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
    Background | Quotes | Financials
    According to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, human beings are just another animal species, no more special or important than a snail darter or dairy cow. read more here »

    OpEds

    Hard-boiled animal activists could threaten vaccine supply
    In the post-9/11 world, the phrase "national security" conjures up images of dirty bombs, jihadists, white powder and biohazard labels. It should also bring to mind another picture: an egg. read more here »

    Put Helmsley's billions to use in animal shelters
    PETA and HSUS have announced their intentions to claim big slices of the $8 billion bounty. But neither one has the track record to handle such a responsibility. read more here »


    Copyright © 1997-2009 Center for Consumer Freedom. Tel: 202-463-7112.