Going to far?

wonder how far this could lead to?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16920866

dusty

Yep. Going too far.

This type of lawsuit is a fairly regular activity for animal rights organizations, only occasionally makes news.

I am no fan of animal rights, but I am a very strong proponent of animal welfare. Very often the animal rights agenda leads to actions that are counter to the welfare of the animals involved.

YMMV!

Yeah. Supposedly a judge here in San Diego is going to allow it to be heard and not straight thrown out of court. Poor Keiko was not successfully reintroduced into the wild. For an animal that's been in captivity that long and used to being fed, taken care of by humans, interacting with humans everyday, I think it was probably depressing to him to be thrown out in the cold (literally) and ignored. Kinda like some of the tame aviary birds I've had - they seem to want human interaction despite being in an aviary with other birds.

I'm not Jewish and I'm offended by PETA's holocaust on a plate. I'd think Jews would find that offensive. Better off the entire species dead than ranched for food which is basically the AR agenda. How is that not genocide? We're talking about animals that don't naturally exist in the wild - domestic chickens, cows, etc.

patdbunny wrote:

I'm not Jewish and I'm offended by PETA's holocaust on a plate. I'd think Jews would find that offensive.

Yeah. I'm a pretty lapsed Jew, but I find "casual" references to the Holocaust or Hitler such as this and some statements made by politicians very distasteful. The deliberate murder of millions of people including small children in cold blood because of their beliefs and parentage, with the complicity of a large fraction of the population, led by a sociopathic madman, is not something to ever dilute by comparing ANYTHING to it, let alone dinner.

I really don't believe that PETA has any interest in the animals they purport to be looking out for. This case seems to be the same thing PETA does on a regular basis; make a big "splash" (no pun intended) so they can push their agenda of animal rights. I don't necessarily disagree with the concept, though I think animal welfare is a better way to look at it. It's more the way that PETA chooses to do things that I find off-putting.

Update: The case has been thrown out of court.

This is interesting:
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/2012/02/consumer-group-announces-possible-litigation-against-people-for-the-ethical-treatment-of-animals/

looks good on them...thanks roz


dusty

Hm. Not sure what to think about that...

Glad to know they have enough money to engage in such crap.

ScooterNScotty wrote:

Hm. Not sure what to think about that...

I think if they file it and prevail, they'll be shooting themselves in the foot. If they prevail on the 5th and/or 8th Amendments, then the animals do have constitutional rights. . .

This was pretty good:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-15-2012/seaworld-of-pain

Not available for us Canadians. I tried youtube, and all the results were for Little House on The Prairie. I'm okay with this.

Try this one:
http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/66609078.html

nope

Internet censorship . . . that's messed up.

How about now:
http://www.aviculture.tv/archives/1053

doesn't work up here


dusty

Apparently it's not the government, it's your ISP. Wonder if you can opt out if you want. It appears to be an attempt to limit access to child porn.

From Wikipedia:

Quote :

Cleanfeed in Canada is a voluntary Internet URL filtering list maintained by Cybertip.ca for use by participating ISPs.[10] Eight major providers, representing approximately 80% of Canada's Internet users, have been using the list since November 2006 to block foreign websites.[11][12][13]

Accessing child pornography online is illegal in Canada. Cybertip.ca is recognized by the federal government, provincial governments and domestic law enforcement agencies for its expertise in assessing the likely illegality of alleged child pornography online. The Cleanfeed system, however, does not log access to URLs on the list as it is not a law enforcement tool.

Criticism

One of the criticisms of the use of Cleanfeed is its potential for censorship. The lack of transparency regarding the use of Cleanfeed have lead some to question how much control ISPs and government bodies could have over internet content within the countries of its use. For instance, the Home Office in the UK has apparently already asked for sites that glorify terrorism to be blocked leading some to liken the powers of censorship, available through use of Cleanfeed, to those employed currently by China.[14]

Another criticism is that Newzbin claims to have successfully circumvented Cleanfeed following a court order forcing BT to censor the website over copyright infringement claims.[15][16] This poses the question as to whether websites hosting child pornography could adopt similar measures to allow their users access to blocked content .

Finally, information has surfaced that suggests that Cleanfeed could potentially be manipulated to provide a blacklist of blocked websites.[17][18] This is problematic as it could allow the dissemination of child pornography, rather than the prevention of access to it. Again this has led some to question Cleanfeed as a successful system for blocking illegal internet content.

And yeah, that's going too far! I think if I were up there, I'd look for an ISP not using it, if I had access to one. Vote with my feet.

thank you Sherlock...lol...now i know why some sites are not available to me and that makes me angry...it is usually news items...


dusty