erinlefey: (Angry Shadowed)
[personal profile] erinlefey

They just had to deal with "crush videos".

If you don't know what they are...I envy you. I now know. (I'll define it in the comments if you really want to know.) And I have never come across a concept that literally made my stomach spasm and attempt to vomit based on the IDEA. I initially said that I hate to be a member of the human race now. I've rethought that. People into that are not human. Y'all know that I'm a live-and-let-live, your-kink-is-OK kind of girl. But if I find someone who thinks such things are nifty, I'm rebooting them into the next reincarnation.

Comment away. But don't joke. My sense of humor is absent on this subject.

Date: 2010-04-21 01:33 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
A crush video is a video where an attractive woman, typically in heels, kills a living animal, typically a kitten, with her feet, slowly for entertainment and erotic value.

Date: 2010-04-21 11:32 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Oh, disgusting. . . I was hoping something more like, "A crush video is when a teenager confesses their love for another person and posts it in the hopes their intended SO will see it."

Fuck, nasty.

Date: 2010-04-21 12:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I know here in Internet Land we're all "what has been seen cannot be unseen" and "brain bleach" and "the gogggles, they do nothing."

But I would happily pay someone money to go all "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" on me and remove the memories and awareness that crush videos or their subjects exist.

Date: 2010-04-21 01:36 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
{fx: googles}
Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! That's sick. Really, realy, really sick. it's "Pass the brain bleach" sick.

I'd be happy to join you in your rebooting project.

Date: 2010-04-21 02:02 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
ok, that.....nononono.....


Date: 2010-04-21 03:11 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I was horrified at the decision when I read about it - as I am horrified at "crush videos" - No, horrified isn't enough)

Unfortunately, SCOTUS was probably correct that *this* law to deal with them was badly written and needed to be struck down.

The ruling was NOT that "crush videos" are protected free speech.

This case was about a guy who made some nasty videos of simulated dog attacks. They would set up a shot where the dog(s) would rush up at [target], then they'd splice in shots of the dogs tearing up some animal parts they'd purchased from a butcher.

He was selling them in a magazine that catered to the dog-fighting crowd, so they arrested and prosecuted him under this very vaguely-worded law. This was the first attempt at enforcement.

The law prohibits recordings, reenactments, simulations, or descriptions of acts of animal cruelty.

The example of unintended consequences most often brought up was that much of Hemmingway's writings would be illegal under the law.

They way the law is worded, blogging about your trip to a bull fight on vacation - illegal.

The movie The Jerk, with its cat-juggling scene, illegal.

Monty Python - illegal.

So, they struck it down as being too broadly worded. The decision includes a statement requesting that if Congress wants to make "crush videos" illegal - MAKE THEM ILLEGAL. Be explicit, don't get all cutesy and try to address the whole space.

Date: 2010-04-21 01:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I dunno. I read 18 U.S.C. Section 48 (as I am completely with you on not even being able to consider the possibility of the existence of crush videos without feeling deep-down-dirty and nauseous and hopeless for a good couple of hours, so this immediately made me spaz out), and I don't think it's as broad as it's being made out to be. Certainly the blogging about bullfights wouldn't fall under "illegal", since it could be construed as both educational and journalistic. Exceptions are also made for religious, political, scientific, historical and artistic depictions (and The Jerk is certainly art). The conduct being depicted also must be illegal under federal or state law. Perhaps my interpretation is colored by my perspective; I have zero problem with any of the protected depictions, so I'm not the type to use it broadly. But maybe it COULD be. In any case, something will be re-written to deal with the issue of crush videos (and possibly dogfighting videos, which is what the guy in this case was nailed for) specifically.

Date: 2010-04-21 01:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
It is the exceptions that get it in trouble, as legislation goes.

This dog fighting guy - there wasn't any actual dog fighting, it was all fake - it was a depiction. Why isn't it art? What if it had some random quotes under the images?

The courts really, really don't want to get into, "What is Art?" Hopefully, they'll come up with something a little more concrete and enforceable.

Date: 2010-04-21 03:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I haven't seen anything that says it was fake. Everything (several articles, Wikipedia) just says there were two dogfighting compilations, narrated by Stevens, and a third boar-hunting video, and actual footage is mentioned. According to Stevens, the dogfighting videos were meant to provide a historical perspective on the practice. If you can point me in the direction of anything that says no authentic footage was contained in the videos, I'd love to see it.

Date: 2010-04-21 03:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Hmph, I cannot find the article anymore, so I will not stand by it veracity. But, it had said specifically that the "Boar Hunt" was staged.

Date: 2010-04-21 05:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
According to a member of Congress who intends to sponsor a replacement bill, the law forbade the interstate sale of depictions in which “a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed, if such conduct is illegal under Federal law or the law of the State in which the creation, sale, or possession takes place.”

The key there is "if such conduct is illegal." I've seen people claim this video made it illegal to make movies about hunting. I don't see how such broad interpretations stand up. I'm not aware of any laws against kitten juggling. Blogging about bull fights -- maybe, "depictions" is a bit problematic, though if this law has only been enforced once since it was passed, it's hard to argue it opened the floodgates for suppression of free speech.

Date: 2010-04-21 03:44 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Words I didn't think I would ever utter: Samuel Alito is my hero today. He was the lone dissenter on this decision.

Date: 2010-04-21 12:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Got to disagree. While I hate the subject of the legislation, it was incredibly poorly written. This law needed to be overturned. Alito didn't look at the law, he looked at his gut, a textbook 'activist judge'.

Nifty thing though: this law had a signing statement that clarified the law and said it would only apply to these sort of videos. The high court said that signing statements had no bearing on the issue. All those statements Bush did just got declared irrelevant.

Date: 2010-04-21 01:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Woo hoo! That is a plus.

Date: 2010-04-21 04:07 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Wow, I knew about this one years ago. There was a story line on either The Practice or Boston Legal (possibly both, they brought back some of the former's characters for the latter) about it.

Date: 2010-04-21 04:39 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
There's a reason they call it "duty".

'Cause EW.

Date: 2010-04-21 01:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I saw the description in a news report on the SCOTUS ruling. Truly, the capacity for depravity of the human race is unlimited.

Date: 2010-04-21 03:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
There was a big uproar on one of the sites where producers can sell video clips about this a few years back when that site first prohibited insect crush vids. Most sites, even the ones that cater to bizarre fetish vids, don't want to come anywhere near the live crush stuff.

Crush videos, however, do NOT have to entail a living thing.

Inanimate objects are also used very often. I've seen everything from your average cigarettes to bubble wrap to telephones and office supplies (i.e. Office Space with a weird slant). And, of course, there's always the messy thing, where foodstuffs or mud or whatever is the item underfoot.

And people crush (not to death of course) remains a mainstay of the fetish. Ballbusting, body busting, and various forms of smother and trample all fall under the "crush" label.

I definitely share the extreme disgust about using ANY living creature other than another consenting adult human in fetish or sexual activities.

Date: 2010-04-21 04:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Ther's a subset of crush fetishes? People are weird.

Your last sentence should be tattooed on people. That's the rule. It's not complicated.
Page generated Sep. 20th, 2017 07:54 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios