Stupid Illinois Lawmakers

George Ryan, our beluvved guv, has just signed into law a bill that makes it illegal to make or sell depictions of animal cruelty:

Click, search for ‘animal’

Damn it! Are that many people so stupid and so ignorant that they agreed this is a good and constitutional law?

Doesn’t anybody in government understand that freedom has a cost? Freedom of expression means every once in a while you have to be exposed to something you find abhorrent. If you don’t like that, then try to change the stupid constitution, morons.

Tangentially, the exception of rodeos could be its own rant. So could the fact that they can use this law to force psychological evaluations.

Idiotic idiots.

I don’t get it . . . Animal cruelty is a crime in Illinois, right? I mean, it’s right here amongst the Illinois Compiled Statutes. So why would one’s “freedom of expression” or First Amendment rights possibly include the right to create or sell depictions of something that is a crime? In order to create the work, you’d have to have committed the crime. Just like raping a child and selling pictures of it are related but different crimes.

Not necessarily; suppose somebody else commits the crime, and you just happen to film it? In any case, that’s beside the point. Goddamnit, you’ve got a right to point a camera at something if you want.

Maybe there are freaks out there torturing animals and making films of it to sell to other freaks. If so, they should be caught and prosecuted and locked in a dungeon, not for making the films, but for torturing the animals.

Because by filming it, you’re an accomplice?


I suspect this law is fairly narrowly targetted at that sub-section of the public that’s into “crush” fetishes: those odd ducks who get off on watching women stomp on insects. As if these people didn’t have enough problems.

How about faked depictions of animal cruelty (such as those often found in mainstream movies)?

How about drawings or paintings?

What counts as “animal cruelty?” What if you tape a bullfight off the TV in Spain?

I agree, this law is idiotic.


I have an aunt who, as a professional artist, sketched elements of (Spanish) bullfights (non-fictional, sort of as a court reporter might). Were she to sell one of her prints to an Illinois resident, is it jail time?

And I too am wondering about the movies. Eight Legged Freaks comes to mind, since someone mentioned bug-squishin’ and there’s a whole lot of “depicting” in that there film.


I think that the wording of the bill makes it clear that it refers to film/video/photographs of actual animal-cruelty:

A good law, in my opinion, and I’m confident that it’s not going to trample anyone’s freedom of expression, since it’s targeting behavior that is already illegal, and with good reason.

Prosecuting the people who do the squishing would be difficult, since I understand the the films are typically close-ups of feet with no way to identify the location or culprit. Very easy act to get away with in a sub-basement-- if you can’t legally sell the video of it, the crime is much less likely to be commited.

Now I’m off to ATMB to find out why the URL tags aren’t working today. :confused:

I would start just the same way, but go in exactly the opposite direction in the second sentence. Animal Cruelty is a crime in Illinois, right? So why do we need a law about the depiction of same?

Is it illegal to film someone smoking pot? Was it illegal for Zapruder to sell a film of an assassination? I don’t follow your reasoning that because something is illegal, a depiction of it should be illegal.

Same thing with the person who said you’re being an accomplice. If you’re an accomplice, that’s illegal already - you don’t need the part about making a record of it. In fact, the record helps prove you were an accomplice.

I watch Animal Precinct on the Animal Channel all the time. They create and possess films that depict animal cruelty all the time. Grant it, it is a show about the ASPCA going out and arresting people for animal cruelty and was clearly not what the legislature intended when they created this law but I don’t think it is obvious from the language alone that this should not fall within this rather broad law.

As for why someone who filmed a crime would be in trouble…well, there are many ways something like that may happen. You could be an asshole idiot and film your own crime and thus hang your neck. Or you could be on vacation and shooting some vacation film of your family when someone runs in the middle of the street and mugs someone in front of your very eyes.

There has to be more to this law that would clarify things. Ahh, just clicked on the link that Larry Mudd provided. That clears things up significantly. I’m sure that the ASPCA is sooo relieved. Heh.:rolleyes:


While common sense would make it clear that a drawn or faked depiction of animal cruelty would be legal, this law does not clearly say so.

While I agree (mostly) with the sentiment, the wording (“any visual or auditory depiction”) is disturbingly vague. Would a film shot inside the Chicago stockyards be legal? Would a copy of Bambi vs. Godzilla?

I wonder if spinn’s gonna be in trouble
or the bonsia kitty ppl

so I can’t squish a bug in IL?

folks, this is another “what business does the state have getting involved?” issue.


would a 'how to brand cattle" video be illegal?

how about footage of chicken/veal farming? that ain’t pretty.

and, WHY would rodeos be exempt? animals are severly harmed
in that business.

(and you don’t want to know what is involved in trainig elephants)