Buffalo Parrot Squawk Forums
October 23, 2020, 08:15:34 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forum Code of Conduct
Forum Portal
Contact us via Email: buffaloparrot@buffaloparrot.com
Squawk It Up!

Welcome to the Buffalo Parrot Squawk Forums!Play our Daily Trivia Game! New Questions Daily!
  Home Help Search Arcade Downloads Gallery Links RECENT POSTS Staff List Calendar Login Register Chat  

When Facts and Truth are ignored to protect Freedom and Rights

Pages: [1]   Go Down
Author Topic: When Facts and Truth are ignored to protect Freedom and Rights  (Read 229 times)
Teacher Member
Psittaciforme Full Member

Like my post 19
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 947


Badges: (View All)
« on: April 13, 2009, 06:27:39 am »

BrokenWing Chronicles
The Captive Bird Campaign – An Overview

The Problem:

The exotic bird trade is a worldwide, billion dollar industry, and in spite of escalating numbers of unwanted and homeless companion parrots, breeders, retailers, and hobbyists continue to breed parrots at an alarming rate. The number of unwanted parrots and reported cases of abuse and negligence continues to grow parallel to the increasing number of birds bred annually.

It is estimated that the average captive parrot lives in at least 5 homes before finding a permanent home or dying prematurely. It is estimated that the average parakeet (budgerigar), whose normal life span is 8 to 15 years, dies within 2 years of birth, usually due to negligence or mistreatment. Parrots, whose life spans average between 25 to 90 years, often die within 5 years for the same reasons. Tragically, the majority of captive birds live in unsuitable and inappropriate conditions that do not provide enrichment and a decent quality of life.

Parrots’ long live span exacerbates the “pet” overpopulation problem and makes it difficult to provide them with a secure future. Long lived birds are sold, or handed down to other family members who may not want the bird when his or her guardian dies.

There are few legitimate sanctuaries for unwanted parrots, and the legitimate ones are most often filled to capacity. Testimonials, complaints, and eyewitness accounts of negligence and horrific cruelty in supposed “sanctuaries” are skyrocketing. The pet bird tragedy is reaching epidemic proportions, and effective resources for addressing the problems are limited. There are no federal laws to protect pet birds, and local humane ordinances are weak and not adequately enforced.

Tragically, the exotic bird industry successfully promotes the idea that parrots make good pets. Apartment dwellers, senior citizens and others are all led to believe that parrots would be their ideal companion, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Read the rest here!

BrokenWing Comment;
When Facts and Truth are ignored to protect Freedom and Rights.
Currently (SO CALLED) Parrot lovers, Bird lovers, Animal lovers are coming out of the woodwork to keep the horrors happening to Parrots, Dogs and Cats.
They are fighting to keep the killings happening.
We see such things as FREEDOM being abused, then we see our Freedom being stripped from all of us, And these so called RIGHTS, fabricated justification to abuse FREEDOM.
As always, the MANY that abuse Freedom ruin it for us all.
They are out there, so called Parrot lovers, so called Animal lovers, they see what is happening to Parrots, they know what is happening to Dogs and Cats,
They will not support any laws that will stop and or help end the suffering of the animals, they will continue to turn there backs and walk away protecting there freedom and rights and the animals, well as long as they continue to pay the ultimate price, why should the Parrot/Animal lover care....
Americans abusing Freedom....are destroying Freedom...and ALL will suffer....
Americans destroying America and all she stands for, Just another day here in America.
Report Spam   Logged

When all is done that is asked from me and I can fly no higher, I pray this day his hand extends to welcome home a flier.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Teacher Member
Psittaciforme Full Member

Like my post 19
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 947


Badges: (View All)
« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2009, 09:00:07 pm »

Court Hears Free-Speech Case on Dogfight Videos

The case concerns the constitutionality of a 1999 federal law that bans commercial trafficking in “depictions of animal cruelty.” The number and variety of questions suggested that most of the justices thought the law was written too broadly and thus ran afoul of the First Amendment.

In defending the 1999 law, Neal K. Katyal, a deputy solicitor general, cautioned the justices against pursuing an “endless stream of fanciful hypotheticals.”

Mr. Katyal reminded the justices that the case before them concerned videos of dogfights and that the law itself was mainly prompted by so-called crush videos, which cater to a sexual fetish. Those videos show women in high heels stepping on small animals.

But the 1999 law by its terms applies to audio and video depictions of all sorts of activities in which “a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed” if that conduct was illegal where the depiction was sold.

The case before the court, United States v. Stevens, No. 08-769, arose from the conviction of a Virginia man for selling videos of dogfights. The man, Robert J. Stevens, was sentenced to 37 months in prison. The federal appeals court in Philadelphia last year overturned Mr. Stevens’s conviction and struck down the law on First Amendment grounds.

Patricia A. Millett, a lawyer for Mr. Stevens, urged the justices to follow suit, saying the law could not be rendered constitutional by narrowing it through judicial interpretation.

“There is interpreting and then there is alchemy,” Ms. Millett said, “ and I think this statute requires alchemy.”

The law does exempt materials with “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.”

But several justices indicated a discomfort with the vagueness of that standard and with entrusting the question of a work’s “serious value” to prosecutors and juries.

“Could you tell me what the difference is between these videos and David Roma’s documentary on pit bulls?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Mr. Katyal, referring to “Off the Chain,” an exposé of dogfighting. “David Roma’s documentary had much, much more footage on the actual animal cruelty than the films at issue here.”

Mr. Katyal responded that “the line will sometimes be difficult to draw.”

Justice Scalia said the law violates the First Amendment by treating speech condemning depictions of animals fighting more favorably than speech celebrating the fighting. Mr. Stevens’s “message is that getting animals to fight is fun,” Justice Scalia said.

The hypothetical Human Sacrifice Channel came up late in the argument. Justice Alito described how it would work.

“Suppose that it is legally taking place someplace in the world,” he said. “I mean, people here would probably love to see it. Live, pay per view, you know, on the Human Sacrifice Channel.”

Ms. Millett haltingly said that Congress could not ban such a channel solely on the ground that it was offensive.

Mr. Katyal, to the apparent surprise of some of the justices, agreed, saying the First Amendment would not permit a law banning such a channel unless it could be shown that the depictions made the sacrifices more likely. The distastefulness of the depictions alone would not justify the ban.

The justices did not seem inclined to expand categories of speech outside the protection of the First Amendment, notably obscenity and child pornography, to encompass violent images unrelated to sex.

In child pornography, Justice Ginsburg said, “the very taking of the picture is the offense — that’s the abuse of the child.” In dogfighting, by contrast, she continued, “the abuse of the dog and the promotion of the fight is separate from the filming of it.”

Ms. Millett agreed. “If you throw away every dogfighting video in the country tomorrow,” Ms. Millett said, “dogfighting will continue.”

Justice Breyer suggested that Congress would be able to draft a more carefully tailored law focusing on crush videos and the kinds of animal cruelty that are illegal in all of the states.

“Why not do a simpler thing?” Justice Breyer asked. “Ask Congress to write a statute that actually aims at those frightful things it was trying to prohibit.”

“I am not giving Congress advice,” he added, “though I seem to be.”


BrokenWings comment
Outright abuse of freedom...then another law is inflicted..stripping away Freedom...
Hmmmmm, so women wearing high heels step on defensless animals...Dogfights...
Taping razor blades on the legs of chickens so there's more blood...

Report Spam   Logged

When all is done that is asked from me and I can fly no higher, I pray this day his hand extends to welcome home a flier.
Mi Amore
Hookbill Master Member

Like my post 16
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,840

for the love of all living things great and small

Badges: (View All)
« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2009, 12:59:25 am »

i understand where you are coming from on these topics especially the dog fighting thing as i know first hand what it is like for a dog since i rescued one that was used for bait. it is a very real and sad thing. i am a true animal lover and would do anything for my pets as they are my children.
Report Spam   Logged

Pages: [1]   Go Up
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
| More
Bookmark this site!
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy