So let me get this straight. This assclown from Virginia gets convicted for selling dogfight videos because the law says…
…the ban on depicting the intentional maiming, mutilation or torture of animals or any wounding or killing.
Under the law, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1999, prosecutors must also prove such videos have no serious educational, historical or scientific value.
Now don’t get me wrong. This guy should go away for an awfully long time. However, how is it a crime to depict on video the intentional maiming, mutilation or torture of animals yet if a video shows intentional maiming, mutilation or torture of humans it’s just fine and dandy? I’m not talking about the Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg videos per se but those videos that have titles like “Too Graphic for TV” and crap like that where they show people being hit by trains or meeting some other similar violent end. Not to mention all the death mutant websites that have such videos available with just the click of your mouse. How is any of that educational, historical or of scientific value? Having a law for animals but not one for humans is reprehensible. Not only does it show that an animal’s life is more important than a human’s it also shows that makers of these death videos can crank them out with impunity. That’s just sick.