Slave the Whales!

Does the 13th Amendment apply to critters? Can whales be plaintiffs? People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals thinks so, and has filed suit in a San Diego court to emancipate killer whales from Sea World facilities in San Diego and Orlando: 

PETA argues that continuing the whales' "employment" at SeaWorld violates the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution, which prohibits slavery.

District Judge Jeffrey Miller heard arguments in the complaint Monday and reviewed the response from SeaWorld, which asked that the lawsuit be dismissed. His ruling is expected to come later.

The suit, filed in October 2011, asked that the court declare that the orcas are "held in slavery and/or involuntary servitude by defendants in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

"It's a new frontier in civil rights," said Jeff Kerr, PETA general counsel, who described the hearing as a "historic day."

"Slavery does not depend on the species of the slave any more than it depends on race, gender or ethnicity," he argued. "Coercion, degradation and subjugation characterize slavery and these orcas have endured all three."

The complaint says the five killer whales are represented by their "friends" at PETA, which include three former killer whale trainers, a marine biologist and the founder of an organization that seeks to protect orcas.

The complaint demands that the court "appoint a legal guardian to effectuate plaintiffs' transfer from defendants' facilities to a suitable habitat in accordance with each plaintiff's individual needs and best interests."

Does Tilikum, who killed an Orlando Sea World trainer in February 2010, have the right to a trial by a jury of his peers? Can whales vote? Can they be president? Do they have the right to bear arms? Does PETA have the right to arm bears? This is so exciting! 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • pmains||

    Listen up brothers and sisters,
    come hear my desperate tale.
    I speak of our friends of nature,
    trapped in the dirt like a jail.

    Vegetables live in oppression,
    served on our tables each night.
    This killing of veggies is madness,
    I say we take up the fight.

    Video here.

  • Zeb||

    I had a friend in college who was vegan and like to say that he wasn't vegan because he particularly loves animals, but rather because he hates plants. So there is such a think as a vegan with a sense of humor.

  • ||

    I was a vegan through much of HS & college. Although not hurting animals made me feel kind of warm and fuzzy inside, I was always doing it more for the self-discipline than anything. I was also straightedge (although not a jerk about it).

    Alas, I finally stopped depriving myself of joy and now enjoy bacon burgers that bleed red, along with homebrewed weizenbock.

  • Fluffy||

    Thank you for getting me to google straightedge. I learned something today.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Fear the power of the sXe kids and their obnoxiousness! (Present company excluded).

  • ||

    ugh. My nephew did that for a few years. What a sanctimonious little cocksucker.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "My nephew did that for a few years. What a sanctimonious little cocksucker."

    That must have been an awkward dynamic, where you were probably expected to be a role model.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "My nephew did that for a few years. What a sanctimonious little cocksucker."

    That must have been an awkward dynamic, where you were probably expected to be a role model.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "My nephew did that for a few years. What a sanctimonious little cocksucker."

    That must have been an awkward dynamic, where you were probably expected to be a role model.

  • ||

    The influence of Fugazi/Minor Threat definitely kept me out of trouble in my teenage years, yet it probably also hindered some friendships and social opportunities. Tried not to be obnoxious or evangelical about it, just avoided the stuff myself because I didn't like acting like an immature jerk.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Letting others know you are straightedge or vegan makes you a jerk.

  • ||

    Ok, I is sorry.

  • Ex nihilo||

    I will have to remember this when people ask why I am vegan.

  • ||

    At least animals have a fighting chance. They have teeth to bite and legs to run. Poor carrots are helpless.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    They hide in the dirt, the little cowards!

  • Dionaea muscipula||

    Workin' on it!

  • ||

  • ||

    I think of that song every time I read about PETA.

  • db||

    Call any vegetable, and the chances are good
    that the vegetable will respond to you.

  • Apple||

    Stop eating our babies!

  • ||

    Soooooo, the chickens are all Jewish?

    That would explain why they don't eat pork.

  • Tim||

    Spock: They like you very much, but they are not the hell "your" whales.
    Dr. Gillian Taylor: I suppose they told you that.
    Spock: The hell they did.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092007/quotes

  • Franklin Harris||

    Spock, about those colorful metaphors. I don't think you have the knack.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    What the hell would possess a judge to hear arguments in this case, other than to determine how much PETA needs to pay Sea World for attorney's fees?

  • ||

    It is odd that it wasn't dismissed right away. It may be that he wants to explain why this is crazy nonsense after hearing their arguments. Or he's a loon, too.

  • ||

    This is why attorneys who bring these cases should be sanctioned.

    Is this a frivolous claim? Yes. The attorney should have to pay.

  • anon||

    Fuck that, they need to be locked up in a mental facility so their stupid doesn't spread.

  • Zeb||

    The right to be a stupid moron is one of the most fundamental rights we have. Simple mockery and sanctions for wasting everyone's time should do.

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    This.

    Despite the careful admonishment I got from the six year old sibling of my Goddaughter there are cases where pointing and laughter is called for.

  • ||

    This^

  • ||

    Typically courts are loathe to dismiss actions sua sponte. If I'm not mistaken, he is hearing arguments on a dispositive motion, i.e. Sea World's motion to dismiss.

  • Almanian||

    I'd settle for him dismissing it "toute de suit"

  • ||

    The complaint demands that the court "appoint a legal guardian to effectuate plaintiffs' transfer from defendants' facilities to a suitable habitat in accordance with each plaintiff's individual needs and best interests."

    Why isn't the real news here the fact that PETA has somehow discovered a way to communicate with killer whales? How else could they possibly know what their individual needs are or what is in their best interests?

    And if releasing them back into the wild is the best thing for them, isn't that essentially arguing that free healthcare and free food is a bad thing?

  • ||

    Someone should intervene on the basis that they, not PETA, represent the whales.

  • Stephen Colbert||

    I'll do it.

  • ||

    I'll donate to your PAC if you do.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    We could have a cookout as a benefit for the PAC!

    I suggest on Front Street or Rader Street, across from PETA's Norfolk offices. Or maybe we could set up in Bea Arthur Dog Park.

    Hamburgers, hotdogs and milk. Can anybody think how we could work leather into this?

  • ||

    Can anybody think how we could work leather into this?

    Yeah, let Epi cook the hamburgers.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Sure, why not, but I meant the kind to offend PETA.

  • ||

    in assless chaps of course. For the leather.

  • ||

    assless chaps

    I always wonder, when someone uses that phrase, exactly where one goes to purchase chaps w/ ass?

    (tried assful and non-assless but couldn't hit on the right word...)

  • Mensan||

    Non-assless chaps are called pants. You can purchase them in almost any store that sells clothing.

  • 35N4P2BYY||

    Sure, we can have Warty bring his funtime outfit, sans strap-on, of course.

  • ||

    Where the fuck is Aquaman when you need him?

  • ||

    He's having some sushi in Santa Clara.

  • ||

    His hair was perfect.

  • ||

    Yes, how did you know? He was also having a piña colada.

  • ||

    Lon Chaney Jr and Beef Chow Mein.

  • Trespassers W||

    I found Lee Ho Fook's by accident one time. As you might guess, it's in Soho.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    "Plaintiff-Intervenor Jason James Richter presents the court with compelling video evidence that he, in fact, does have a kind of 'special' communication with the orcas."

  • o3||

    this validates that animal marrage will result from teh gay marrage. so this voter's going full santorium on this beastiality

  • Malaria Parasites||

    "It's a new frontier in civil rights."

    About fucking time.

  • The Other Kevin||

    So they win this case, then they apply the 2nd amendment to chimps and gorillas, then we are all fucked.

  • Rich||

  • Jeffersonian||

    Reminded me of Vanessa Redgrave in one of her more pro-Pali moments.

  • Loki||

    Get your hands off me you damn dirty ape!

  • annonymous commenter some guy||

    How many damn, dirty apes does it take to screw in a light bulb?

  • Jumbie||

    I don't know. How many?

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    How can a judge even hear arguments on this? Wouldn't PETA have to establish standing in it's initial complaint? How could PETA possibly argue that a whale has standing? Preposterous!

  • anon||

    Yeah, this case would be laughed out of the Honorable Judge Anon's court room.

  • annonymous commenter some guy||

    I have a feeling that a lot of cases would be laughed out of Anon's court.

  • brec||

    [gently removes cat from lap, from which he has a view of the computer monitor]

  • Jumbie||

    Cats have no need to sue. They already are in control.

  • tarran||

    I think one of the ethical issues that people will have to tackle at some point is what organisms are in the set of ownable property, and what are in the set of things that can own property.

    To date it's been easy, the latter set is populated by humans, the former is everything else.

    But that's really not a universal property. For example, what if we find complex organisms w/ primitive culture in the oceans of Europa? What criteria would we use in deciding between treating them like humans and treating them like chimps?

    The deontological side of me wants some defensible criteria.

    Hoppe's argumentation ethics, for example, is a great starting point - although such a scheme could be used to justify classing the mentally retarded as being ownable property.

    It's a fascinating question.

  • Rich||

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    It's a crazy world, man. Wait until those aphids unionize, and stop the free flow of honeydew. A new office, the Animal Labor Relations Board, will have to be created.

  • ||

    "A new office, the Animal Labor Relations Board, will have to be created."

    With all board employees members of AFSCME union, of course.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    As soon as they can communicate with us in some meaningful fashion, then we can have a discussion. Otherwise, APEX PREDATORS FTW.

  • ||

    Most animals can communicate with us in a meaningful fashion. Can't you understand when your dog is hungry? Or thirsty? Or needs to go outside or wants to play?

    Heck, even some plants can communicate with others (and us). The acacia tree will release ethylene gas when it's leaves are molested by a grazing animal. This gas can be detected by other trees more than a mile away. These trees will then massively increase their production of tannins, rendering the plant inedible. This method of communication is easy for us to mimic and intercept.

    You don't even have to remain among eukaryotes to have meaningful communication. Both bacteria and fungi communicate with themselves and others using chemical messengers. Your own flora is actively communicating with your body right now in ways that dramatically impact your life.

    So no, communication is not a useful metric. Let's just stick with "us" (homo sapiens) versus "them" (everything else) until a real need arises.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Yes, but those aren't communication in the human sense, they are in fact biological imperatives. Just as our brains and stomachs tell us when we are hungry, even if we don't want it too.

    That doesn't make it communication in the human sense.

    Same with the dog - sure, food, outside time, play, the mutt can give me many clues, yet can and will never be able to explain her values, beliefs of freedom, or whether she bite that kid in self-defence of she was just pissed off.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Yes, but those aren't communication in the human sense, they are in fact biological imperatives. Just as our brains and stomachs tell us when we are hungry, even if we don't want it too.

    That doesn't make it communication in the human sense.

    Same with the dog - sure, food, outside time, play, the mutt can give me many clues, yet can and will never be able to explain her values, beliefs of freedom, or whether she bite that kid in self-defence of she was just pissed off.

  • annonymous commenter some guy||

    You could use Hoppe, but only apply it on a species basis, rather than an individual basis. So, if you are a member of a species from which any member is capable of argumentation, then you are a "person". If your entire species is incapable of argumentation, then you are not a "person".

    Now we get to debate the exact meaning of "species".

  • Zeb||

    It is a very interesting question. If we ever do encounter (or perhaps create) another type of being that has similar intelligence and sentience to people, we will really have to think about what we mean by "human". I tend to favor the idea that the mind should be all that determines humanity. This does leave the problem of what category to put severely retarded or disabled people (and perhaps fetuses) in. I think that the reason we have to treat such creatures as human is that there are humans who care about them as if they are human, so for practical reasons they ought to be treated as such. Of course that has its problems too, but it's somewhere to start from, I guess.

  • Brett L||

    See here. Singing American folk songs is the bar for humanity.

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    Ah...a good yarn, that.

    Haven't read it in years.

  • ||

    While I agree the case should be dismissed and PETA sanctioned, this isn't quite as ridiculous as some of their arguments. The plain text of the 13th Amendment actually doesn't state that it is limited to "people," "persons," "citizens," etc., so there's a purely textual argument (ignoring all legislative history and circumstances surrounding the amendment's adoption) that it could apply to "involuntary servitude" by animals.

  • ||

    Despite the lack of "human" in the text, you could point to what lawmakers and citizens thought the 13th amendment meant at the time, and I doubt a single one thought it would apply to those beasts who supplied all their lamp oil.

  • Words mean things||

    you could point to what lawmakers and citizens thought the 13th amendment meant at the time

    Yeah that worked out well for the Commerce Clause.

  • ||

    There's no law supporting that interpretation, and that logic could be taken to additional unhealthy extremes. For instance, I believe there's no specific requirement that federal judges be human.

  • Watson||

    That is correct.

  • T||

    Look at the federal judiciary and tell me this is news.

  • ||

    I leave for another time the question of whether bonobos would be an improvement.

  • Radioactive||

    should that be the feral judiciary?

  • Untermensch||

    That might explain some federal judges.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted...

    That a conviction can be an exception makes it pretty clear that the amendment is referencing beings that can be convicted. Animals can't be convicted so the amendment doesn't apply to them unless one wants to make the argument that the 13th provides even more protection for animals than for humans since there would be no conditions under which animals could be subject to involuntary servitude but conditions under which humans could be.

    Good luck with that textual argument.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    That a conviction can be an exception makes it pretty clear that the amendment is referencing beings that can be convicted.

    COOL! If PETA succeeds then we can finally bring Tilikum up on charges for three murders, one each in 1991, 1999 and 2010. Justice was delayed, but no longer denied.

  • ||

    Involuntary presupposes agency, which animals do not have.

  • ||

    PETA provides that agency. They now are the sole representative of all nonhuman life on Earth.

  • cynical||

    No wonder everyone hates animals so much.

  • ||

  • ||

    Whales get rights when they get responsibilities.

    And what about the rights of the fish and other mammals that killer whales eat? I'm sure a seal has a right not to be grabbed and flipped out of its skin.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    I once asked a PETA supporter if a lion should be arrested and tried if it killed an antelope.

    She didn't answer me.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    As an asside to that, I don't think I've ever met a man who supports PETA. I know that they exist but every PETAphile I ever met was female.

  • anon||

    You've never lived in a 75% democrat district, have you?

  • Live Free or Diet||

    They're still women. Just not in the good sense.

  • anon||

    Point earned sir.

  • Brett L||

    Visit Austin or Tallahassee.

  • reformed republican||

    I am a male, and I support their "I would rather go nude than wear fur campaign."

  • Zeb||

    Fur coats are a bit much perhaps, but you can take my fur hat when you pry it form my cold dead hands.

  • annonymous commenter some guy||

    Speaking of whales...

  • 35N4P2BYY||

    I think that the demographics and motivations of PETA-people are remarkably similar to those of the OWS nincompoops. Seventy five percent are women that are true believers and the remaining twenty-five percent are dudes pretending to be true believers IOT get into said seventy-five percent's panties.

  • ||

    Perhaps it's related to the fact that the vast majority of species we designate as endangered are mammals and birds. No one's out trying to save the Adders or the Smallpox.

    Until I see a "Save the Mushrooms" campaign, I refuse to think that any of this is anything other than a longing for stuffed animals.

  • Slobbering Drunk||

    So, PETA received consent from the whales to represent them? Really? I'd love to see what constitutes consent.

  • Brett L||

    Pretty sure South Park covered that.

  • ||

    When the VP of PETA stops taking the insulin that was developed through animal testing and contains animal products, I'll start taking them a little more seriously.

  • ||

    Plus, their naked-chick standards have fallen dramatically.

  • Apatheist||

    You picked a poor picture to exemplify fallen standards. I'll be in my bunk.

  • ||

    All right, dude. Enjoy your jowly fantasies.

  • tarran||

    You like that!?! Those tats looke like the scribblings in the notebooks of some of my 5th grade classmates.

    She's got the ultimate birth control device - insta' boner killin' art on her skin.

  • ||

    10-1 there's a C-section scar hidden under that gunt tattoo.

  • ||

    Or a penis...

  • Pham Nuwen||

    gunt

    I will be using this word a lot now.

  • Ska||

    I've only heard it used as a synonym for FUPA.

  • ||

    I'd do her, but only because I have no confidence.

  • Apatheist||

    I'm not saying she's the hottest chick in the world but surely there are uglier PETA chicks out there. Plus she has a nice rack. That tats are mediocre in general but the one on the chest looks nice, she is the type that they can look good on.

  • ||

    Upon closer inspection, she's wearing pasties and what appears to be some sort of pubic area covering. So, either she's not a true believer or she's got a seriously misshapen pair of nipples and/or a dong.

    Either way, do not want.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Didn't see this before... you know... etc.

  • Apatheist||

    Fuck thanks for ruining the illusion. That does look weird. It probably is to stay within the confines of the law.

  • Zeb||

    You write very well for someone in the 5th grade, tarran.

  • ||

    I looked her up. She's Dani Lugosi, and she actually looks like your type, assuming she went to the gym first. You know, skank metal.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    That's cheat! Look again, she has on pasties and a flesh-colored g-string!

    And I agree with Tarran about all the crap scrawled on her. Her lips look like they got a bad inflation job too.

  • ||

    If you covered those tats in make-up I'd do her.

  • ||

    Does anyone here doubt that Orcas are more intelligent than PETA members?

  • annonymous commenter some guy||

    I read that as "Orcs" the first time.

    Either way, I agree.

  • rather||

    whales with nekid women and neither in cages

  • rather||

    My safe for little boys whale story

  • PETA||

    Does the 13th Amendment apply to critters?

    "CRITTERS"?! That does it! I know we've got AAW's phone number around here somewhere.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Woodturning?

  • Franklin Harris||

    So long, and thanks for all the fish.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_dUmDBfp6k

  • Ska||

    Hah, dude, I was thinking that too.

  • ||

    Fuck PETA.
    Fuck those Whale Watcher dumbasses.
    Fuck ELF.
    Fuck CAFT.
    Fuck FoA.
    Fuck WSPA.
    Fuck the WWF.*
    Fuck the ALDF.
    Fuck IDA.
    Fuck all of 'em. Animals are for human enjoyment or consumption.

    *I blame Hollywood Hulk Hogan for destroying it.

  • mac ||

    don't forget Sea Shepherd

  • ||

    Fuck those Whale Watcher dumbasses.

    Oh, they're #2 on my list of fucking retarded animo-centric crusader dickhead groups..

  • mac ||

    gotcha

  • rather||

    If a corporation is a person, then why not a whale?

  • rather||

    Land whales are people too!

  • rather||

    Poor Warty; can't stand not replying :-(

    Why doesn't PETA protect his gentle ego?

  • ||

    Because he's a man, not an animal or retarded feminist.

  • rather||

    I didn't see this on you wedding registry

  • Michael S. Langston||

    So....

    People are people
    And....
    Groups of people (corporations) are people

    Yet you wonder how that doesn't also include whales?

  • rather||

    This question is worth a blog

  • ||

  • SunnyOtaki||

    Who represents the seals interests in freeing these whales? How many seals will these 3 whales munch before PETA’s lawyers force them into veganism? I don’t think the whales have thought this through.

  • adam||

    It would be quite funny to file a suit against the whales in the name of the seals and then try to intervene in this suit. If I were some absurdly rich guy, I would do it.

  • Gojira||

    The answer to every single one of those questions in the last paragraph is, "yes!"

  • ||

    I wonder if any pro-life groups would file amicus curiae at least supporting the idea of PETA being able to represent the whales.

  • ||

    I represent the scavengers of the world, who object to whales being kept alive in captivity.

  • ||

    Leela:Animals eat other animals! Its nature!
    Free Waterfall Jr.: That's not true! We taught a lion to eat tofu. [The lion coughs.]

  • Ska||

    The emaciated, despondent looking lion coughs.

  • tarran||

    BTW, nobody Free Willy Waterfall Jr. for his hypocrisy; Free Willy Waterfall Jr was a noted anti-eating activist!

  • Tim||

    If they win this one, the unicycle riding bears will be next. Then the organ grinder monkeys and seeing eye dogs. It's a slippery slope.

  • ||

    Joking aside, they are going after cattle, pigs, chickens etc. They want to put a stop to animal husbandry altogether. And meat eating.
    Fuck it, we will have to start bbq'ing PETA members then.

  • Jumbie||

    They taste like shit. (so I heard. And those two PETA donation solicitors who visited me NEVER saw the inside of my basement. Never.)

  • Zombie Jimbo||

    No BRAAAIIINNNSSS

  • Jumbie||

    They taste like shit. (so I heard. And those two PETA donation solicitors who visited me NEVER saw the inside of my basement. Never.)

  • Jumbie||

    They taste like shit. (so I heard. And those two PETA donation solicitors who visited me NEVER saw the inside of my basement. Never.)

  • db||

    Presumably the whales' friends at PETA can produce the power of attorney documents by which they claim authority to speak for the whales.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    I'll want to see how the whales react when they get the lawyer's bill.

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    The legal fees should be held in escrow until the whales sign off on the payment.

  • anon||

    PETA trolls have grown bored.

  • anon||

    Hey wait, does this mean we can hold polar bears responsible for eating baby seals?

    And then, once the polar bears are terminated, the endangered species act can't be used as justification for pollution control anymore.

    Fucking win.

  • ||

    This is where I differ from some other libertarians.

    I think tort reform is a pretty good idea.

    Why should anyone, even a big corporation that makes bad beer like Anheuser-Busch, have to pay attorneys to defend against this stuff?

    At least we could go with treble damages for bringing a frivolous lawsuit, couldn't we?

  • ||

    One major, major flaw in our system is that attorneys/plaintiffs don't get punished for frivolous claims.

  • Brett L||

    Loser pays would end almost all contingency cases, for better or worse. (Despite the ambulance chaser stereotype, there are good decisions that come of contingency agreements between plaintiffs and their lawyers.)

  • ||

    Yes, that's always the question--are we entirely better off with loser pays? The way our system works now, it's possible to get buried by an opponent with dramatically deeper pockets.

  • Brett L||

    Add it to the jury to decide. If they find the defendent not guilty, then they can assess whether the plaintiff's suit was frivolous based on the evidence presented during the trial. Contingency cases fall back on the plaintiff's attorney.

  • DanD||

    Am I the only one who imagined a football team busting through that banner?

  • anon||

    I forgot to look at the pic. I didn't realize PETA was the embodiment of godwining.

  • ||

    You know who else was the embodiment of Godwinning?

  • anon||

    Charlie Sheen?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Maybe a team with brown jerseys.

  • db||

    You laugh, folks, but we really should take whale rights seriously. The last thing we want is a militant whale uprising, complete with whale suicide bombers.

  • anon||

    I'm pretty ok with a whale holocaust.

  • FlyoverCountry||

    a whalocaust, if you will.

  • ||

    The only way to save them is to send them back to their home. On the Moon.

  • ||

    Didnt those fucksticks with PETA, somewhere in Michigan I think, get caught killing dogs?
    They went around in a van collecting unwanted dogs, for a fee, and promising to adopt them out. They were taking the money and killing the dogs as soon as they got them in the van. They got stopped by the cops and the cops found a van full of dead dogs. I think I remember that right.

  • ||

    Apparently in VA
    http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

    I don't know about that website, but I remember reading about PETA killing animals in their Death Van a few years ago.

  • ||

    Fuck. I had to click on that and it made me sick. Anyone who kills a dog should be skinned alive.

  • Zeb||

    I can think of lots of good reasons to kill a dog.

  • 35N4P2BYY||

    Seasoned correctly, they can be kinda tasty, if a bit gamy.

  • ||

    So much crazy here. Yes, PeTA has occasionally killed animals. Sick animals who couldn't be saved, or those at the ends of their lives. This is called euthanasia, and is what decent people do with animals that are at that stage in their lives.

    This story has been spun all out of reality.

    Not sticking up for PeTA, but if you're going to criticize them, at least find something valid.

  • Jumbie||

    Yet somehow PETA kills *their* 'sick' animals at a muhc higher rate than other shelters and they have a much lower adoption rate.

    I'm sure that's not unrelated to anything.

    Care to comment on the death van BTW?

  • Brett L||

    To be fair, if given their way, they'd euthanize humans at a far higher rate than most other groups that care about and protect animals.

  • Tonio||

    Numbers? Linkies? Any actual evidence.

    Yes, there are no-kill shelters, including my local SPCA. Since they went no-kill they implemented a very strict animal acceptance policy.

    Jumbie, you may consider this as addressed to you, as well - show me the numbers and be prepared to deal with the question in the paragraph above.

  • tarran||

    So 94% of the animals crossing their threshold were sick and required immediate euthanization?

    How lucky for PETA that they had so many sick dogs coming in, what with their lack of kennel space for more than three dogs.

  • Jason||

    If the Second Amendment applies to animals, does that mean that we'll see frickin' sharks with frickin' sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their frickin' heads in the wild?

  • Colin||

    I was walking to work here in DC last week and saw PETA protesting Groundhog Day as abuse of wildlife. Kid you not.

  • Juice||

    The groundhog looks pretty fat and happy to me.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Why doesn't Sea World hold weddings and have the trainers marry the whales than they would be spouses instead of slaves.

  • ||

    PETA has also been giving Ducks Unlimited a hard time. That would be the PETA that has never saved a single quacker, and the Ducks Unlimited that is responsible for every single fucking duck in North America.

    Peta doesnt give a flying shit about animals. It cares about donations and getting in people's faces.

  • Zeb||

    I think that most probably care about animals. They are just over-emotional morons who don't understand the consequences of their actions or beliefs.

    Aren't you the guy who just said that people who kill dogs should be skinned alive? That doesn't seem much less extreme than the positions PETA takes.

  • Bill Davis ||

    Calling all believers in our United States Constitution. Sign this petition to let the Obama administration know we will not let our rights as Americans be trampled
    http://www.nrsc.org/campaigns/.....-freedoms/

  • wet||

    So, if I accidently run over a squirrel while speeding, is that involuntary manslaughter? I'd go to prison in states with sentencing guidlines becuase of the death points that would get added.

  • ||

    Way to glibly not engage the issue, wet. This case is about Orcas (aka "Killer" Whales). They're litigating about certain individual members of an intelligent species in particular circumstances.

  • ||

    If you are gonna sit there and bleed out of your vagina that animals can be slaves then I expect you'll be going around to farms and freeing all those oxen that pull plows (do people still do that?) and goats that produce milk and shit, right?

  • Tonio||

    Sorry, I'm not going to argue on behalf of the strawman version of me you've constructed in your head. Come back when you have something.

  • Trespassers W||

    Oh yeah? Let's see these "intelligent" orcas try to find their way into a bird feeder designed by the best Soviet scientists.

    Squirrels FTW.

  • Short Ted||

    With a Gillette Mach 5?

    Oh, I thought that said Shave the Whales.

    my bad

  • cynical||

    So, they've pissed off Jewish people (by trivializing the Holocaust), blacks (by trivializing slavery), feminists (by using naked women as their primary campaign tactic). I guess maybe their next step is to sue for the right to human-animal marriages to piss off the gay rights movement?

    Is PETA a real thing, or right-wing performance art?

  • ||

    Not a big fan of PeTA. There are many in the animal welfare community who feel that PeTA does more harm than good for the cause.

  • Jumbie||

    Why do you keep putting the PETA e in lowercase? Are ethics less important to them or-? Ah. I see. Carry on.

  • cynical||

    It stands for People for the Trivialization of Atrocity, obviously.

  • Tonio||

    Because it's how they spell it.

  • voxpo||

    I heartily agree with Tonio's larger point here.

    For many, the qualities of humans that make us human--like intelligence, language, culture--are irrelevant and all that matters is that our cells can be determined to be human under a microscope while those of whales/chimps/etc. cannot. Therefore, no matter what mental or social qualities we are likely to come to understand in other species (see Alex the African Grey parrot, for example), it doesn't matter. They're not humans and therefore we need give them only minimum consideration, legally or morally. I think that this mindset will, as we understand and communicate better within our own species, make a painfully slow exit. Some animals already have limited legal rights (protections). Eventually, they will be given more.

    In the mean time, feigning belief that banning cruel treatment of some species is tantamount to, or leads to, having dogs vote or prosecuting people for swatting flies (or orcas for eating seals) will not fool the wiser among the wise species, who see it for what it is: obfuscation.

  • voxpo||

    Okay...my comment of 3:01PM was supposed to be in reply to NL_|2.8.12 @ 2:16PM.

  • Tonio||

    Thanks, voxpo. Well put.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Lots may think that, but I would suggest they are serving some purpose based upon their continued existence and donations.

    What they do is to make other laws look tame in comparison. Ie - they move the goal posts on what is considered acceptable, allowing things once considered insane to now be considered tame.

  • voxpo||

    There are all sorts of people and organizations of all belief systems "serving some purpose based upon their continued existence and donations." This does not, by itself, invalidate a viewpoint.

    And I'm not convinced that all goal post-moving is negative. Women are getting some limited political rights in Saudi Arabia. It probably is an appalling development to some there. But, I hope those goal posts continue to creep along.

  • ||

    Amazing that some of you here will claim that a ball of a few human cells, incapable of thought or language, is somehow a person, but that a fully functional ape or whale deserves no more consideration than a garden slug.

  • NL_||

    The suit is not in defense of cetacean life, it's cetacean freedom from coercion. The equivalent is not to banning abortion (destruction of fetal life) but to banning homework, church attendance, and chores (childhood enslavement).

    The argument you might make is that using creatures for food production is the equivalent to abortion. Which is weak, but at least involves parallel destruction of one being for the sake of another. This situation is only the controlling of one being for the purposes of another.

    Of course, if the SeaWorld whales go free then how long until we have to stop owning pets? Owning a pet dog is pretty close to having a private, dog-version of SeaWorld - you feed and shelter an animal who in turns provides you with recreation and tricks.

  • Tonio||

    Dogs =/= Whales.

    Basically, what you're going to see is animals getting various degrees of protection on a species by species basis. Smart animals like whales and apes will get a lot of protections, dogs and cats lesser, the status of slugs will probably remain unchanged.

    Also, there's a difference between a pet dog and an unpaid performer.

    Surprisingly, extension of any rights, no matter how limited, to non-humans is a difficult concept for many here.

    And my comment about human zygotes wasn't making a moral equivalence so much as pointing out that you can't have the zygote rights discussion without also having the animal rights discussion. At least not if you're being honest.

  • NL_||

    Also, I object to your harsh, anti-slug rhetoric.

  • ||

    Um maybe that's because that clump of human cells has the chance to become a full fledged human being and orca whales can't change species?

  • voxpo||

    How is that more valid than what each currently is? Is theoretical potential worth consideration and present ability to feel anguish not?

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Until animals can communicate in meaningful ways, those who believe whales deserve more rights than they have had, are the ones asserting the facts in this case.

    IE - it is not incumbent upon us to prove that whales shouldn't have rights - it is incumbent upon those asserting these new facts, of their assertions.

    And as most of the comments here display brilliantly through jokes - your side has no case.

  • Tonio||

    Define "meaningful". Several apes have been taught human sign language and are able to converse.

    Whales are physiologically incapable of human speech, and lack the digits required to use sign language. That doesn't mean they can't communicate.

  • voxpo||

    Interesting assertion. I wonder when and where it was established that whales enjoy the correct amount of rights and that the burden is on anyone who questions this. Lucky that we somehow got it just right!

  • barfman||

    *barf*

  • romulus augustus||

    What is PETA? People Eating Tasty Animals?

  • rather||

    Wow, you are so funny...About 922,000 results (0.57 seconds) assholes just like you on the internet.
    Congrats

  • NL_||

    How long until the IRS and California Franchise Tax Board go after SeaWorld performers for failing to report all that mackerel and cod as untaxed income?

  • rather||

    all you litle boys think your hilarous none of you could handle a reel women like me
    -fuck off bitchs

  • ||

    You really are a solid gold prick...epi or rather or tony or however many names you post under. you are like an oppositional-defiant child who has no agenda other than getting a reaction out of people.
    I just laugh now when I see your posts.

  • Trespassers W||

    Um, I think that was a spoof.

  • Tonio||

    Which one?

  • Almanian Dat Phan||

    Da whale don't hesitate...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFDUOfRXP_k

  • horsewithnonick||

    Antibiotics Are Murder

    Stop the Micro-Holocaust

  • voxpo||

    So, it's ridiculous to give all life forms legal rights, therefore it's ridiculous to give any life forms besides humans any legal rights?

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Prove why that shouldn't be the case, since you seem to be asserting it should be otherwise.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Prove why that shouldn't be the case, since you seem to be asserting it should be otherwise.

  • voxpo||

    Actually, I'm suggesting that the second does not follow from the first. But, if you can show that it does, have at it.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    PETA must really hate those whales. If they want them all to die a swift death, by all means, release them from captivity.

  • Repo Orca Bud||

    I'd rather die on my fins than live in a pool!

  • Tonio||

    I thought the standard libertarian argument was that it was better to be free to live or die on your own than to live in bondage of any sort, no matter how gilded the cage.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    If I had to scrape a dead freedwhale off my beach with a front loader, PETA would be getting a hefty bill.

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    Facts:

    1. Animals aren't people.
    2. Refer to Fact Number One.

  • voxpo||

    And a child isn't an adult. Yet, we give children legal rights. But wait, we don't give children all the legal rights of (most) adults. How can this be? Don't we have to give a being full legal rights if we them any at all? Interestingly, the answer is no.

    In other news, doing something one way does not mean it is the best way nor that we have to do it that way forever. Remember that time some people started doing some capitalism instead of mercantilism year after year, decade after decade? That was pretty cool.

  • Jim Treacher||

    You might think PETA is silly, but everything they do is for a porpoise.

  • ||

    TO ME, ALL PETA MEMBERS ARE DUMBASSES!.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement