Hounded, Cowed, & Badgered

Imagining reform beyond the animal law ghetto

Not to grouse, but the latest crush video ban can safely be characterized as addressing only niche cruelty. There are dozens if not hundreds of other forms of abuse that would rate higher on my agenda. But two recent pieces have made me think more broadmindedly (yes, I know how it's spelled) about the prospects for real change to our laws on animals. A vegan animal-law agenda like mine shares almost nothing with the animal-law agendas, to the extent they exist, of most Americans and of almost all legislators. One could be excused for giving up on the idea of animal law reform entirely.

The question is if there is any common ground for improving the lot of animals being abused, ideally by banning that abuse. The Journal of Legal Education has a provocative piece on this subject, "The Future of Animal Law: Moving Beyond Preaching to the Choir," by Megan A. Senatori and Pamela Frasch. The authors study the environmental movement and identify four "levers" for social justice: (1) emphasizing human interests, (2) finding credible witnesses to highlight abuses, (3) building "outsider buy-in", and (4) political pressure. I'm sure scholars of social justice could find other impetuses/foci for change but the piece is convincing on the ones it identifies.

I had these ideas in mind when I read a recent post by the always knowledgeable Michael Markarian. He has a few proposals that would appeal to the human interest in cutting the federal deficit, and which have the potential for big public buy-in. With the caveat that I'm a political outsider myself, I wouldn't give favorable odds on the most cost-saving of the proposals. Animal industries have a far reach, and would likely fight any pro-animal change in farm-subsidy or predator-control policy.

With the above caveat reiterated, the best shot seems to be limiting the use of animals in research. This guess is somewhat counterinutive, given Senatori's and Frasch's comments on the credibility of scientists as witnesses to abuse. But there is enough hostility to science among conservative religious legislators that there might be votes there. Defunding primate research has the potential for tremendous public buy-in. And if reformers need credible witnesses, Matthew Broderick and Helen Hunt spring to mind, given their past work ;)

Thank you, Markarian, Senatori, and Frasch, for making animal law reform seem possible, if not imminent.

Crush videos banned (again)

President Obama has signed a bill banning crush videos. As noted a few posts down, a prior ban was struck as unconstitutional in United States v. Stevens. The enacted version follows the original Senate version of the bill (see comparison), in that it covers a broader definition of abuse, one partially rooted in federal criminal statutes involving human victims. In addition, the ban does not repeat the mistake of the pre-Stevens statute, which required an additional state or federal statutory violation. The Stevens court didn't like the possibility that state law violations, especially those for noncruel acts, could be "exported" to other states.

The only difference I can find between the original Senate version and the one what is now law has to do with inchoate offenses, i.e., acts falling short of commission of an act. The law does not expressly prohibit conspiracies or attempts to create, distribute, etc., the videos. There was some fear that the stripping of inchoate offenses might doom the bill, at least in the short term, but the bill passed in that form.