Posts Tagged ‘animal rights’

Suit demanding warnings on hot dogs

The Newark Star-Ledger covers a publicity stunt by the animal-rights group that calls itself Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Patrick at Popehat engages in a bit of naming and shaming. Others to have written on the group in question include Newsweek in 2004 (“Less than 5 percent of PCRM’s members are physicians”), the American Council on Science and Health, and the food-industry-defense Center for Consumer Freedom.

P.S. L.A. Times gets the best line, from Susan Thatcher of Irvine: “Vegans complaining about hot dogs is like the Amish complaining about gas prices.”

Filed under: animal rights, food safety, labels

“Chambliss blocks regulatory pick over animal lawsuits”

Speaking of renowned Chicago law professors with reputations that cut across ideological lines: “Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) has blocked President Obama’s candidate for regulation czar, Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, because Sunstein has argued that animals should have the right to sue humans in court.” [The Hill; mostly favorable coverage of Sunstein’s nomination and views at my other site, Point of Law].

Filed under: animal rights, Cass Sunstein

Widow of murdered fly seeks White House compensation

Satire from Iowahawk (language).

Filed under: animal rights, humor

May 7 roundup

New court allegations that disgraced Luzerne County, Pa. judges fixed civil cases as well [Legal Intelligencer; earlier here and here]
Half-hopeful, half-sad story of Florida town’s efforts to live down “Nub City” insurance-fraud notoriety [St. Petersburg Times a while back, but new to me; Errol Morris film; my review of Ken Dornstein’s book]
Evidence continues to roll in against once-touted theory that bans on smoking in public places result in dramatic overnight drop in heart attack rates [Sullum, Reason “Hit and Run”, earlier here and here]
Maybe everyone’s too used to such things by now to get riled up by that pic of garishly painted “1-800-LAWYERS” van [Ron Miller; earlier]
Magazines often found on scene at law enforcement raids = guilty magazines that should be banned from mails? [McClatchy “Suits and Sentences” blog; earlier on cockfighting periodicals Apr. 24, etc.]
Lawprofs: Let’s carve bigger religious-conscience exemptions into antibias laws [Robin Wilson, L.A. Times; Dale Carpenter series at Volokh; Ira Lupu, ConcurOp via Orin Kerr]
UK: “Parents sue NHS over ‘wrongful birth’ of disabled son” [Times Online, our earlier coverage of concept]
Throw bloggers in prison because their posts cause emotional distress? Have fifteen members of Congress gone completely mad? [David Kravets, Wired “Threat Level”, earlier]

Filed under: animal rights, bloggers and the law, discrimination law, Florida, free speech, insurance fraud, Luzerne County judicial scandal, same-sex marriage, smoking bans, wrongful birth and wrongful life

Update: Animal rights vs. free speech

The Supreme Court “has agreed to consider whether a law barring videotapes and other depictions of animal cruelty violates the First Amendment.” The law could result in criminal charges being filed over, say, videos of bullfights or cockfights taken in nations where those practices are perfectly lawful, or taken in U.S. states where until recently various forms of animal fighting were lawful. The Third Circuit ruled it an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. [ABA Journal, Lyle Denniston/SCOTUSBlog, Adler @ Volokh; earlier] Nearly ten years ago (yes, believe it or not, this blog will turn 10 as of the first of July) we covered the original federal legislation, and visitors still arrive regularly at this site after searching on the term “crush videos”.

As we noted in a 2006 post, litigators for the Humane Society of the U.S. have been trying to force the U.S. Postal Service to ban the use of the mails by animal-fighting magazines like The Feathered Warrior. Now, according to an HSUS release, they have gotten a judge to order the USPS to reconsider its non-censorship policy. [Rebecca Baker, “Completely Legal” Gannett Westchester legal blog, Apr. 23]

Filed under: animal rights, crime and punishment, free speech, Supreme Court

April 3 roundup

Those enviro-hazard warnings plastered all over because of Prop 65? They may be not merely pointless but untrue [California Civil Justice; a still-timely 2000 piece]
Is it somehow wrong for a public medical examiner to testify against cops — even when it’s in another county? [Radley Balko, Reason]
UCLA research scientists fight back against animal rights fanatics’ violence and intimidation [Orac/Respectful Insolence, “Pro-Test”]
Ezra Levant, himself a target of Canada’s official speech tribunals, has written a new book denouncing them, buy before they ban it [Amazon; Andrew Coyne, Maclean’s] Has odious censorship-complaint-filer Richard Warman finally gotten his comeuppance? [Ken @ Popehat] More: another Warman case [Cit Media Law]
Roundup of recent sports/assumption of risk cases [John Hochfelder]
Already in trouble on charges of faking a will, Allentown, Pa. police-brutality attorney John Karoly now faces tax charges including alleged failure to report $5 million in income for 2002, 2004 and 2005 [TaxGirl]
Lawprof’s “Reparations, Reconciliation and Restorative Justice” seminar led to introduction of Maryland bill requiring insurers to disclose antebellum slaveholder policies [DelmarvaNow]
Judge tosses suit by Clarksville, Tennessee officials against activists who called them cozy with developers [Sullum, Reason “Hit and Run”]

Filed under: animal rights, assumption of risk, California, expert witnesses, free speech in Canada, insurers, Maryland, Prop 65, reparations, Richard Warman, sports, Tennessee

March 20 roundup

Elena Kagan’s changing views of Senate confirmation process: “Lobster in Pot Re-Evaluates Pro-Boiling Stance” [Spruiell, NR “Corner”]
“Federal Courts React to Tide of Pro Se Litigants” [NLJ]
We get permalinks in nice places including a prominent Dutch business paper [NRC Handelsblad]
Someone who needs research done should snap up Kathleen Seidel, model practitioner of citizen journalism on autism-vaccine fray [Neurodiversity] When she got a call from a charity telemarketer recently, she began checking them out online. Results? Devastating. [Neurodiversity, Popehat]
How far does Britain’s new animal welfare law go? Does it really cover little Nicholas’s pet cricket? [Never Yet Melted]
Constitutionalizing judicial ethics: Caperton v. Massey case before Supreme Court is a bit more complicated than you’d think from the NYT editorial [Point of Law]
If you’re not in favor of government cracking down on what is said in online forums, are you “trivializing women’s harms”? [Danielle Citron/ConcurOp, Scott Greenfield] On the other hand, it doesn’t take a commitment to feminism to note that there are online bullies and they’re a nasty, overwhelmingly male lot [Popehat, language]
Attorney walks away from a whole bunch of cases after accusation he bribed a Royal Caribbean Cruise Line employee, and his troubles may not be over yet [Florida Daily Business Review]

Filed under: animal rights, Kathleen Seidel subpoena, Netherlands, online speech, pro se

“New Business for Courts: Pet Custody”

“The [New Jersey appellate] panel declined to adopt a best-interests-of-the-pet standard as urged by amici in the case.” Judge Jane Grall wrote that in the absence of legally cognizable abuse or neglect to an animal, there might not be “judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving questions of possession from the perspective of a pet”. [New Jersey Law Journal]

Filed under: animal rights, family law, New Jersey

“I am ready to go to prison for hamster murder”

U.K.: James Delingpole wonders whether he will become a jailbird for releasing a savage rodent pet into the park. More: Stefan Beck, Arma Virumque.

Filed under: animal rights, United Kingdom

“Ringling Bros. Elephant Trial Promises to Be a Circus”

“After more than eight years of litigation, lawyers for Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus will appear in federal court this week to square off against a handful of animal welfare organizations that have filed suit against the circus alleging that it routinely violates federal law by abusing its elephants. The case is a major test for the reach of the Endangered Species Act, which for the first time is being used by private citizens to try to influence the care of animals already in captivity.” If the complainants, led by the ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), succeed in the creative effort to reshape the Endangered Species Act into a federal animal welfare statute, lawsuits in other areas are likely to follow [Legal Times]

Filed under: animal rights, endangered species, SPCA