4 ms·
Isn't this in direct conflict with whistleblower laws? I mean, it should never be illegal to report on illegal activity. However, if PETA feels that a perfect
by Zimahl 14y ago
Isn't this in direct conflict with whistleblower laws? I mean, it should never be illegal to report on illegal activity.
However, if PETA feels that a perfectly legal and well-maintained slaughterhouse should be taped and the 'horrors' shown, that's a different story. Just because they feel 'meat is murder' doesn't mean that it is.
- lessnonymous 14y agoI think that's probably at least the intention of the legislation. When PETA films some normal farm procedure, they'll add ominous music, show only the most horrid parts of whatever is happening, desaturate the pictures and tar the entire industry with being gruesome. Under 1st Amendment rights, they're allowed to do this. They're not showing anything that didn't happen so it isn't libelous. Personally I think the first amendment is out of date. The appeal to it's authority is a prime example of the Historians Fallacy[1]. In many other countries there are restrictions on speech -- and that is seen as a generally good thing. Eg. hate speech, and holocaust denial. Defamation cases are also able to hide behind the first amendment in the USA, where they cannot elsewhere. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian%27s_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian%27s_fallacy