Comment on Slaughterhouse video taken by ‘extreme’ animal activists amounts to ‘ongoing trespass’, federal court told - Vegan Theory Club

DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

• NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  idk how to tell you this but if you aren’t vegan this is the shit you enthusiastically support. Like you work hours of your life to pay for, you vote to tax people to subsidise it and you support censoring what actually happens.

  source

  • DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    I am vegan, btw.

    source

    • NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      <3

      source
  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    no one supports it at all. that’s why people think exposing it would be effective at stopping it.

    source

    • NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      And yet people make laws protecting it, people elect people who make those laws, when given a choice between supporting the industry and not they support the industry. When activists show the horrors people insult and ridicule them.

      you just want to feel justified in not going vegan till someone else solved the problem for you.

      source

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        you just want to feel justified in not going vegan

        I am justified, and going vegan won’t stop this. you already tried that

        source
  • TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Who says I’m voting for subsidies?

    source
• dgriffith@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  If they’re so legit, they should be happy to share the footage.

  Put the moral implications aside for a second and translate their actions to any other business. The business being ok with sharing the footage obtained via trespass implies that they’re also ok with trespass.

  That’s a legal minefield no business wants to get into and out has knock-on effects. If employees are identifiable and haven’t given consent - and they are not in a public place , working in a private area - then that’s another headache.

  If they use proprietary methods or equipment it gives a chance for competitors to gain insight and possibly an advantage if they happen to view those methods.

  There are health and safety requirements as well. Regardless of who is on their site, they have a duty of care to protect them from hazards. Having people on site that aren’t aware of safety processes (and processes in general) isn’t great. If the trespassers method of entry was relatively easy, it means that protections that stop the general clueless public aren’t the best either, and that puts them in hot water with safety regulators.

  So basically, no legal counsel will tell the business, “sure, let them show the footage they illegally obtained, it’ll be fine”. They have to resist it, regardless of whether it’s a shining example of best practice or not.

  source

  • NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Well, they have to resist it if they first create the circumstances for it to be made, then decide to do the evil thing. Humans are in fact capable of making moral choices. Their response could be, for example, publishing it themselves or like shutting down.

    It’s only inevitable if you assume enough people involved don’t actually care about what is going on and instead choose to make the line go up.

    source