Public perception has always played a significant role in the battle for animal rights. Newspapers, publishing houses and television have traditionally served as facilitators–and occasionally unwitting allies–of the movement. Due to the persuasiveness of visual aids, it is clear that the future battleground for the public relations struggle will take place on Youtube and other online media sources. These websites have revolutionized anti-cruelty documentation through the distribution of inexpensive, visceral and uncensored viral videos depicting the inhumane treatment of animals. This has elevated animal advocacy to an unprecedented level.
One particularly graphic video (Warning: contains graphic footage, not for the faint of heart) depicting a goring of a rodeo horse by a bull at a high school rodeo has generated over 8 million views. It is clear from the accompanying discussion amongst the Youtube “commentariat” that distaste for the sport of bull riding is far from unanimous, however ,it is difficult to recall any instance when a public debate over the sport has taken place at such on such a grand scale.
Another jarring video (Warning: contains graphic footage, not for the faint of heart) documenting the slaughter practices of the Hy-Line International hatchery in Spencer, Iowa has generated over 2 million views. Iowa recently passed a law criminalizing the secret recording of factory farms in attempt to ban the promulgation such videos. Such laws pose a real threat to animal advocates who seek to publicize these practices, however ever more worrisome is the policy of censoring animal cruelty videos that online video distributors have begun to employ.
Youtube initially banned the depiction of the brutal treatment of calves at E6 Cattle Co. in Hart, Texas, ironically stating that “If a video is particularly graphic or disturbing, it should be balanced with additional educational or documentary context and information.” To its credit, Youtube has since reinstated the video with a disclaimer warning of the video’s graphic content and requiring viewers to certify that they are at least 18 years of age. Vimeo also banned the footage. The website later acknowledged that the intent of the video was to expose cruelty to animals, however maintained the ban because the video contained “gratuitous animal cruelty” and therefore violated the sites Terms of Service.
While other states have proposed legislation similar to Iowa’s ban on the secret filming of factory farms, however it is not the only battle which animal advocates will find themselves waging in the fight to keep animal abuse visible and part of the public discourse.
Filed under: animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal ethics, animal rights | Tagged: activism, ag-gag, animal abuse, animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal ethics, animal law, animal rights, animal suffering, animal welfare, factory farms, First Amendment |