Digital Dissenter

In wanting to write a post about censorship online I have been reading up on a number of issues ranging from the Great Firewall of China, the proposed firewall in Australia to the legislation concerning the ban of so-called “crush-videos” in the US. The latter in particular got me thinking about the catch-22 involved in certain types of activism that require the distribution of content that contains explicit violence – especially towards animals. (Forgive me if just this once I actually use this blog entry which is meant for the discussion of digital activism for some of my own activism.)

If, like myself, you didn’t know what “crush-videos” are; thanks to the Web I now know that they refer to videos of women crushing small animals with their bare feet or stiletto heels. Apparently there is a (sick and perverted) market for such content. A ban was passed on the creation, possession and distribution of such videos in the US in 1998.


This ban was upheld until April this year when the creator of dog-fighting videos was taken to court for the creation of content that depicted animal cruelty, for the purpose of selling them online. The case was dismissed and the ban was in fact over-turned under the proviso that it was too broad and needed to be narrowed quite considerably so as not to encroach on the right to freedom of expression.

The reasoning behind the notion that the ban was too broad was that under that legislation, any person purchasing, selling or in possession of hunting videos would in fact be violating the law.

Last week however, the revised ban on crush videos was passed as the “Prevention of Interstate Commerce in Animal Crush Videos Act of 2010”.   In the act, ‘animal crush video’ means any obscene photograph, motion-picture film, video recording, or electronic image that depicts actual conduct in which one or more living animals is intentionally crushed, burned, drowned, suffocated, or impaled in a manner that would violate a criminal prohibition on cruelty to animals under Federal law or the law of the State in which the depiction is created, sold, distributed, or offered for sale or distribution.

While I think that it is important for legislation to exist in order to avoid the production and dissemination of such depraved content for financial gain on the Internet, it’s difficult not to see the hypocrisy in it.

Let’s look specifically at the wording of the types of animal cruelty that are prohibited and the instances in which such acts actually occur freely, without any consequences despite the fact that one or more living animal is intentionally (Warning: the links below are associated with explicit animal rights videos):

1. Crushed: Seal clubbing, general practice in some instances of the fur industry, and the animals who suffer this fate with no consequences by virtue of their status as food

2. Burned: The multiple animals that are subjected to third-degree burns for scientific research, the pigs and chickens that are scalded alive to remove their hair and feathers in abattoirs

3. Drowned: How many people have been prosecuted for the drowning of litters of unwanted kittens or puppies? 

4. Suffocated: Do fish not suffocate when they are caught?

5. Impaled: Unfortunately the animals that are killed for food are not euthanized nor do they die of hypoxia, instead their death always involves some degree of cutting, slitting or stabbing. Also correct me if I am wrong, but does bow hunting not involve impaling an animal with an arrow?

The act does not does not prohibit the sale, distribution, or offer for sale or distribution, of any visual depiction of customary and normal veterinary or agricultural husbandry practices; or hunting, trapping, or fishing.

And so I must ask: what is it about modern society that actions of gross cruelty can be deemed simultaneously “normal” and protected, yet also “obscene” and outlawed.

The animal that dies being crushed by a stiletto heel, feels pain in the same way the cow feels the blade slit its throat. And just as the person who earns money off selling his crush videos online, so too does the worker in the abattoir receive payment for the institutionalised cruelty he carries out every work day.

So while one may not personally be involved in the crushing of a small animal which we all seem to find deplorable; take a moment to think about which aspects of your lifestyle actually contribute to horrendous acts of cruelty that are only deemed "normal" or legal because the end result is on your dinner plate.

Some people may feel that all videos depicting animal cruelty, even those with the intention to spread awareness and bring about change, should be banned due to their horrific nature. Personally, I feel that if you are part of the system that is causing the suffering, you have a responsibility to be aware of it and to see it.