April 23rd, 2010
Potos such as this one from the ASPCA site makes an animal lover's blood boil
There’s no debate that people who run rescues and shelters are angels on earth.
There’s also no debate that people who support these rescues in whatever way they can are passionate animal lovers.
What I sometimes find debatable among rescue folks and animal lovers alike is how far they take their cause before it’s considered unacceptable, extremist or even militant.
We’re in a new age where the Internet and social media sites have replaced “red paint” demonstrations of the 1980s (remember those activists throwing red paint on fur wearers?).
The other day, I noticed a (real world) and Facebook friend questioned a rescue group’s methods and motivation of posting an accused animal abuser’s address and photos of the home on a page dedicated to the rescued pet.
Even though the abuser has been charged with felony animal cruelty and is awaiting trial, some people don’t seem to think that’s enough.
“If anyone is near (name of town), you can find this scumbag at (address),” read the post put up by the page’s owner.
It generated many responses, most of them seemingly harmless vents. However, there were also posts reading, “(The abuser) will get (theirs), enough people have seen who (they are). Accidents happen to people all of the time,” and “(The abuser) should be hung for what (they) did.”
The post with the photo of the home (which also showed another member of the accused abusers family) had already generated a post that read, in part, “Everyone in that house should burn.”
After posting a note urging caution in both rhetoric and action, my friend was accused by another member of the page of showing sympathy to the accused abuser. When I also posted arguing that posts such as these could, at worst, be considered calls to violence and, at least, hurt the case, especially if the suspect was suddenly turned into a victim, I was ridiculed and asked to leave the page.
The page administrator deleted all of the posts that expressed concern and argument against these tactics, including mine, while leaving up, “Everyone in that house should burn.”
What shocked me was not the passionate anger on behalf of this helpless creature that had been terribly abused to near death. I feel that passionate anger almost everyday when I sign on to Facebook and read the horror stories the many rescues I follow post. (And yes, I’ve vented that rage in public forums, especially about Michael Vick, but I’m not posting his schedule, home address or photos of his home in a public forum).
What shocked me? Only three of us, out of dozens of posts, saw the potential harm that could come to residents of that home (which includes a child) and how the case to see justice for this poor pet could be derailed by a person who decided to literally “find the scumbag” at that address.
The page’s owner responded by posting that they were urging the followers on their site to remain “peaceful,” no laws had been broken and anything posted to the page was already public knowledge.
Being not just an animal lover, but a journalist, I looked into the matter, and the argument the page’s owner made that no laws had been broken is debatable.
An attorney in the state where this case resides believes “posting personal information (including a phone number, address, workplace, etc.) about another person encouraging others to harass that person” falls under that state’s cyberstalking laws. (The attorney for the accused is saying the family has already received death threats, as have the suspect’s former employers).
In the SHAC case, prosecutors went after that animal rights organization for violation of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act simply for posting the names, addresses and contact information of officials at an animal research facility. They were found guilty although their website expressly read that people should only engage in peaceful and legal forms of protest and although the addresses and contact information of the officials were already publicly available in phone books and corporate reports.
Still, even if no laws had been broken, the fact remains that “extremist” forms of activism only serves to do harm to a cause.
The Humane Society of the United States has a statement on their website that reads, “Any tactic or strategy involving violence toward people undermines the core ethic we espouse. Such tactics are ethically wrong and do fundamental damage to the credibility of the humane movement.”
Whether posting the address, contact information and photos of someone’s home can be considered a “tatic or strategy involving violence” is up to interpretation.
Next week, I’ll post ways we animal lovers can take positive action for the creatures we are so passionate in protecting.
But I’m curious, what do other animal lovers and rescues think, how far is too far?
Related Posts
Tags: animal cruelty cases, animal rights extremist tactics, cyberstalking, how far is too far, posting personal information on a website, SHAC
Posted in K9 Rescue | 10 Comments »
10 Responses to “How Far is Too Far?”
Leave a Reply
Kerri Fivecoat-Campbell has had dogs all of her life. Her first rescue was Hershey, a miniature black and brown Dacshund. She ruled the Campbell household until 2005 when she passed away at age 16. The case of Scruffy, a Yorkshire terrier whose torture death was videotaped in 1997, horrified the nation when the tape appeared on national news shows. Kerri began covering the trial for the local daily newspaper in Kansas City, Kansas where the crime occurred. Her investigation into animal cruelty cases led to her awareness of the puppy mill problem in that state.
- Lou Vlashi: Pretty nice post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed surfing...
- Floyd Kottsick: Really nice design and fantastic subject matter, nothing at all else we need
. - chiropractor irving: Oh my goodness! an incredible article dude. Thank you However I am experiencing situation with...
- Inger Paquet: Hi! I’m at work browsing your blog from my new iphone 3gs! Just wanted to say I love reading...
- bisexuel: This is really fascinating, You are an overly skilled blogger. I’ve joined your rss feed and look...
This does scare me, Kerri. Do cases like this make me angry? Yep. Do I ponder the “harm” people who abuse animals deserve? Yep.
But, when those feelings go viral (or whatever) n the internet and potentially inspire a mob-like mentality, then … for me … that’s going too far.
I look forward to your ideas on how to use this emotion in a constructive way next week.
Kerri- as you know, I was one of the three who objected to the violent tone of posts to that website. I signed on thinking it was a site established to bring to light a case of horrifying abuse against a dog. But the more I read, the more alarmed I became, especially when personal information about the perpetrator of the abuse was posted, along with photos of their home. Added to that, were the inflammatory comments including the one you noted above that “everyone in that house should burn.” That was really the final straw for me, and I had no doubt at that point that these people were advocating violence. As you also point out, people who believe they have the right to take justice into their own hands, even to the point of inciting violence, do far more harm to the cause of animal rights than good. I live in Kansas, where last year, a doctor who performed late-term abortions was shot by an extremist who believed he was justified by his righteous cause. Numerous anti-abortion websites had posted his home address as well as other personal info. Some even had abortion doctors listed on a “hit list.” Vigilante violence is never justified, and the people on that site who are advocating physical harm to the dog abuser’s family (which as you say, includes an innocent child) are culpable for whatever happens as a result of their irresponsible, inflammatory and dangerous rhetoric. Thank you for blogging about such an important topic.
What you described is certainly an example of going way too far. Can’t wait to see your post next week.
Violent rhetoric is harmful, even when it is aimed at someone who has committed terrible abuse or murder of another being. The person making such statements has lowered themselves to the level of the person they are so angry with.
I believe in taking care of the animals (or people) who have been mistreated and letting the legal system take care of the abuser. I also believe strongly in educating children and other family members who live in such a home so they do not continue the legacy. It’s pretty common that other family members are also being abused and should be protected, not harmed.
You’re right. This absolutely goes too far, and it violates the accused’s right to due process through prosecution by actual law enforcement authorities. One might say that it interferes in the ability of law enforcement to do its job.
Also, it’s far too easy to render serious harm to an innocent person simply by posting such information about someone you don’t like. It doesn’t matter whether that person has ever even had animals. People seeing this information would be inclined to act first without questioning the veracity of the claim. I tend to think that any pets in the accused’s family would probably end up victimized by the same fire that was set to “punish” the accused. That’s not very animal-friendly.
Kerri,
You’re absolutely right. This is very scary and going too far. When this type of thing is done to abortion providers, I have no doubt that the people who post names/pictures/addresses are inciting violence. It’s the same thing here, and I think the owner of the site should have immediately removed the address etc. and told commenters that this was unacceptable.
Oh, I understand the anger and outrage. But responding to violence/criminal behavior with more violence/criminal behavior is just wrong. We need to be non-violent if we want to show violence is wrong.
Allie
This attitude seems reflective of our society as a whole, inasmuch as there’s always the fringe element. They don’t seem to exceed more than 20 some percent of most movements, animal, political or otherwise.
By shutting out opposing views they announce to everyone that only the angry people with violence in their hearts need comment. It makes them easy to find when one of them takes the violence to the streets. I doubt that even comments from the heads of major animal welfare organizations denouncing their rhetoric would change their minds. Yes, this is dangerous.
Someone once said “when you see crazy coming, cross the street.” There is sound reasoning behind that statement. Diagnosing the level of pathology to gauge how far someone will go according to website commentary is for those with degrees and lots of experience to answer. It’s the lurkers who take it all in without leaving a trace who may be of more concern.
Thanks for relating your experience!
If one were to harm the abusers then they are committing the very act they find so reprehensible.
I think for animal lovers: abuse of animals really hits a nerve. The animals are defenceless. They have been powerless over any choice in their life since birth. They have no voice or recourse. This makes abuse of any animals an even more heinous crime.
I think posting the address at this point will cause violence towards the abusers. I know that if I could come in actual contact with an abuser I would be very tempted to harm them.
It would be best to work towards educating the public on humane treatment of animals expose more abusive practises ( puppy mills, exotic animals for medicine, fur, animal testing,animal fighting etc) and to dramatically increase the penalties of abusers
.
Astonishing post. Thanks for publishing this blog. Will definetly come again for more fascinating information.
I have so much appreciation for people who actually take the time and care for animals – you know, those that can’t help themselves. I wish there were more nice people that were willing to do such good deeds.