|
I'm not sure I understand the uproar. If I understand this correctly, it's still illegal to commit animal cruelty. Couldn't the videos be used as evidence anyway? I guess one could argue that the person holding the camera (and selling the videos) is an accessory to a crime, rather than having the act of filming and distributing the act be the crime in and of itself.
__________________
"Give the public everything you can give them, keep the place as clean as you can keep it, keep it friendly" - Walt Disney
|