Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| STEVENS, R.A.V., AND ANIMAL CRUELTY SPEECH: WHY CONGRESS'S NEW STATUTE REMAINS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROBLEMATIC | J. Alexandra Bruce | 51 Gonz. L. Rev. 481 (2015-2016) | Abstract: The constitutionality of restrictions on speech depicting actual cruelty to animals is a question that continues to divide courts and commentators. In U.S. v. Stevens, the Supreme Court struck down a 1999 ban on depictions of animal cruelty. The Court invalidated the ban on its face because, as written, the statute extended beyond acts of actual animal cruelty to other forms of unlawful animal harm, such as hunting out of season. Thus, the Court did not resolve the core question presented. Congress responded by drafting a new statute, one narrowed to “crush” videos--obscene depictions of animal cruelty--in an effort to avoid constitutional problems. This new statute, however, continues to raise constitutional and public policy concerns--despite its recent upholding in the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Richards. This article is the first to analyze the constitutional and public policy issues presented by Congress's new animal cruelty speech regulation. This article contends that the modified statute is poor public policy and remains constitutionally problematic. First, as a policy matter, the statute is ineffective because it fails to criminalize the most widespread and troubling form of animal cruelty speech: animal fighting videos. Second, the statute's overly narrow reach--limited to obscene depictions of animal cruelty--in fact increases its constitutional problems by triggering the “virulence” doctrine first articulated in R.A.V. Since courts are unlikely to view obscene depictions of animal cruelty as virulently “prurient” obscenity, as opposed to the kind of “morbidly” violent speech entitled to the protections of strict scrutiny as established in Brown, the statute will likely be invalidated. The article concludes with an exploration of possible new legislation, which could effectively prevent animal cruelty, while also preserving free speech rights. |
| Mythic Non-Violence | Tamie L. Bryant | 2 Journal of Animal Law 1 (2006) |
In this essay the author claims that mythic rejection of violence harms animals and their advocates in the following ways: (1) it lays the foundation for the claims of institutional (ab)users of animals that they do not and would not treat animals cruelly or violently because they are participants in the mainstream values of the society; (2) it results in traumatic silencing of advocates because of public disbelief that so much violence against animals could be occurring in a society that abhors violence; (3) it creates broad-brush oppositional categories such that animals’ advocates can be painted as violent actors in a society that rejects violence; and (4) it hinders full consideration among advocates as to what advocates themselves consider “violent” means of protecting animals for fear that such discussion might allow for any amount of violence and, thereby, discredit animals’ advocates and their cause. |
| Sacrificing the Sacrifice of Animals: Legal Personhood for Animals, The Status of Animals as Property, and the Presumed Primacy of Humans | Taimie L. Bryant | 39 Rutgers L.J. 247 (2008) |
Part I of this article begins with consideration of two different definitions of legal personhood. In Part II, the author makes use of philosopher Jacques Derrida's suggestion that humans maintain their hegemony and conceptual separation from animals by failing to include animals in the proscription “Thou shalt not kill.” Ultimately, the author concludes that these two examples indicate that pursuit of direct legal standing for animals themselves is not always necessary to secure positive substantive changes in the law. |
| Symposium: Confronting Barriers To The Courtroom For Animal Advocates - Linking Cultural And Legal Transitions | Taimie Bryant, Una Chaudhuri, and Dale Jamieson | 13 Animal Law 29 (2006) |
In this discussion, panelists explore the many viewpoints society holds with respect to nonhuman animals. The discussion broadly covers ethics and what constitutes ethical behavior in this regard. The question dealt with is, largely, what is the appropriate ethical model to use when arguing that animals deserve better treatment and expanded rights? Unlike parallel movements for human civil rights or women’s equality, the animal rights movement has much greater hurdles to overcome when it comes to arguing that animals deserve equal treatment under the law. In an attempt to address this question, the dialogue touches upon many areas of human thought. The panelists take on diverse fields such as philosophy, science, anthropology, environmentalism, and feminism and use them to understand the past and present state of animal law. The analytical tools of these several disciplines are also applied to animal law in an attempt to develop a better model for the future. |
| In the Doghouse or in the Jailhouse?: The Possibility of Criminal Prosecution of the Owners of Vicious Dogs in Louisiana | Mary S. Bubbett | 49 Loy. L. Rev. 953 (2003) |
This comment first addresses the established trend in Louisiana of holding dog owners ever more accountable for the damage their dogs cause. Second, this comment explores the emergence of criminal prosecution of dog owners around the country for their animal's actions and its impact on Louisiana jurisprudence. Third, this comment explores the possibility that the prosecution of an owner of a vicious dog might result in a conviction for either negligent homicide or negligent injuring in Louisiana. Finally, this comment proposes a legislative change that ensures those who own killer dogs and carelessly keep them will be punished. |
| A 'HARE' RAISING LAPSE IN MEAT INDUSTRY REGULATION: HOW REGULATORY REFORM WILL PULL THE MEAT RABBIT OUT FROM WELFARE NEGLECT | Taylor Budnick | 21 Animal L. 329 (2015) | Rabbits are most commonly perceived as soft, fuzzy, tender, loving, active household pets. However, rabbit meat is growing in popularity among urban farmers, foodies, and chefs alike. The pet rabbit industry is subject to a variety of laws and regulations intended to ensure the humane and proper treatment of these beloved pets. Yet, 'meat rabbits,' which are often the same breed or species as pet rabbits, are often not covered by either the protections that govern the treatment of animals used for meat or the protections that govern the treatment of rabbits as pets or companion animals. The lack of laws and regulations applicable to the meat rabbit industry has led to widely documented inhumane treatment and animal abuse. Such beloved companions deserve the benefits of increased government oversight of rabbit meat production. This Article proposes that, on the federal level, the United States Department of Agriculture inspection of commercial rabbit producers and processors should be mandatory rather than voluntary. States must also play a central role because, given the nature of the rabbit meat industry, it is especially important that any new standards reach small farms and urban farmers, in addition to commercial producers. This Article proposes that state standards use puppy mill laws as guidance, given rabbits' societal status as companion animals. New laws governing the raising of meat rabbits should establish standards for light and ventilation, requirements for environmental enrichment, limits on breeding, and floor space minimums for cages. Such changes will ensure that the rabbit's more typical role as a companion animal is acknowledged, while providing the necessary protection from abuse and mistreatment when rabbits are raised for meat consumption. |
| 2007-2008 Case Law Review | Jennifer Bunker | 4 Journal of Animal Law 183 (2008) |
This article provides a summary of cases released in 2007 to 2008 relating to animal law. |
| Brief Summary of Invasive Species and Animal Welfare | Cassandra Burdyshaw | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This brief summary introduces the concept of invasive species and the federal and state laws that address their control. It also briefly explores the potential animal welfare issues that arise in dealing with invasive species. |
| Overview of Invasive Species and Animal Welfare | Cassandra Burdyshaw | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This overview discusses state and federal laws that control the spread of invasive species. It also touches upon the tension between eradication methods and potential animal welfare concerns. |
| Detailed Discussion of the Laws Concerning Invasive Species | Cassandra Burdyshaw | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This paper introduces the concept of invasive species and give examples of how they threaten the economy and ecosystem and human health. It then examines the federal laws that address invasive species, as well as examples of state responses to invasive species. The methods of control and eradication of invasive species are explained. Finally, the paper discusses the impact that these laws and methods have on animal welfare. |