Although it addresses some of the darkest aspects of the subject, it seems this has turned into a serious and informative discussion, thus far, on the issue. I have appreciated reading each post.
Does anyone have thoughts, information, ideas, or suggestions regarding the legal ramifications, assuming now that there is a basic consensus on what is unhealthy human behavior as it gets expressed through treatment of animals?
I would certainly agree that the act of hunting in itself is certainly NOT a pathological instinct, in and of itself, as I've previously posted. It would be a truly beautiful world if we didn't eat animals, however, I don't see this as any kind of realistic idea and it may not even be a healthy idea. Another factoid is the one about brain evolution and brain size being reliant on the fact that we changed over from being vegetarians to meat eaters.
The point is that it seems to me that we can fairly easily and peacefully distinguish, within this discussion anyway, a clear line between what is basically natural and what is basically "cause for concern" or a "red flag" or potentially pathological, as well as what is actually pathological.
Another possible aspect of the discussion:
Are there members here who are either lawyers, legal historians, or other concerned members with legal training, education, or other qualifications who would be able to shine light on the history of animal treatment regulations in the mainstream film industry? Do we know what it was that finally brought the regulations into effect? For example, film makers used to simply trip horses when they were shooting war scenes. I believe that special effects technique is totally out of the question, now.
It might be a constructive exercise to talk about what the realities are now and what might be involved or required in order to extend/legislate some of those same animal welfare concerns and regulations from mainstream cinema into the porn industry without compromising our rights to free speach and sexual expression.
The simple thought, maybe it's too simple, but the one I had and posted earlier was the basic notion that consentual sex is legal sex in the porn industry. If "consentual" means all living characters participating in sexual acts, real or depicted, including animals, must verify "consent" by signing release papers. It strikes me as a basic and simple way to clear up the issue without much paper work at all. If a bear can't sign it's name, a bear can't join in the fun? I don't know. I'd like to hear serious perspectives & interpretations from anyone educated in this area.
I don't think we'll be jeopardizing our constitutions if we agree to require all porn "performers" or "talent" to be of a legal age and able to sign papers of consent. We've already done that to a degree. It rules out children effectively and, hopefully, those who are legally insane or in a vegetable state, mentally or physically. So, I'm not sure what it takes to include animals in that same protected demographic for all the same simple reasons we protect them in Hollywood. Hollywood no longer says, "o, well, they're animals, so they don't count. We can hit them, or scare them, or shoot them in the head for your entertainment." It will not destroy the constitution if the Porn industry follows suit in that one area.
It will sure bum out people who like to watch horses do things with people. I would certainly not assume that people who are aroused by bestiality fantasies in porn are ALL pathological or on their way to being mentally "unfit." From my experience and understanding of animals, including horses, I strongly believe they are innocent and would not reasonably be considered "consentual" players in any acts that include sex. They do like to be ridden, and they do like to race, even if they initially dislike being "broke." But, that's horse talk and another subject. Regardless of any stand on "bestiality" fetishes that most commonly include horses and dogs, I'm certainly less concerned about defending, defining, reforming, or furnishing horse & dog fetishists than I am about establishing some simple change in the laws to prevent pornographers from depicting or perpetrating an array of destructive acts on animals in a sexual context that either point to or stimulate many mental health problem indicators. Simply put, some events are not just a matter of preference, or moral taste. Some events actually ARE wrong. Harming children is one of those things. It's not a question. And we all can easily say that if our society were permissive in the area of harm against children, it would be a denegration of ourselves as a society in addition to the harmful act itself.
It would be less interesting to get into a pissing match about what things are right and wrong about how we currently treat animals. It would be more interesting and helpful to talk about what can be done to clarify and prevent the most obvious "wrongs" done toward them in the porn industry. Even if those "wrongs" are rare. Apparently they are less rare. And as a judge once said, "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it..."