• ZooVille Additional Cost's CLICK HERE
    Please Donate, Funding is critical to continue site operations.

PACT Act: a federal ban?

Zoo50

Citizen of Zooville
Various news organizations such as CNN are reporting that the PACT Act (a bill which just passed the Senate in the United States) is going to ban "sexually exploiting" animals at the federal level in the United States. Is this true? If so, does that mean there will now be a federal law banning sex with animals in the United States? The bill is primarily about banning "animal crushing", but the text of the bill says that it would ban acts within "sections 2241 and section 2242 [of the U.S. Code]". Those sections concern sexual acts. Does this mean that, eventually, zoo porn will no longer be able to exist on the Internet? HSUS has also said that this bill would allow federal authorities to shut down zoo forums.

This is the text of the bill:


Below is one of the various news articles saying that this bill bans sex with animals:


I also hate the fact that this bill explicitly allows hunting (hunting is animal cruelty).
 
Last edited:

knotinterested

Esteemed Citizen of ZV
This latest bill is aimed at those involved in fighting animals and also in videoing the act and selling these videos. However with it's broad scope it can come to bear on those involved with bestiality. However it seems that this would only be the case if the act was videoed and then sold.

I also understand you point of view on hunting but must say that IMHO it is not cruelty because in most cases the animal dies immediately after sustaining the injury. To torture an animal to death would be cruelty. Believe it or not there are actually videos of animals being tortured to death and those that would do that deserve every bit of time behind bars that they might receive.

In the real scope we will just have to wait and see what measures they try to enforce and we can go from there.
 

Zoo50

Citizen of Zooville
This latest bill is aimed at those involved in fighting animals and also in videoing the act and selling these videos. However with it's broad scope it can come to bear on those involved with bestiality. However it seems that this would only be the case if the act was videoed and then sold.

I also understand you point of view on hunting but must say that IMHO it is not cruelty because in most cases the animal dies immediately after sustaining the injury. To torture an animal to death would be cruelty. Believe it or not there are actually videos of animals being tortured to death and those that would do that deserve every bit of time behind bars that they might receive.

In the real scope we will just have to wait and see what measures they try to enforce and we can go from there.
In a lot of cases (when someone is hunting an animal), the animal is wounded, but survives and escapes. The animal then dies a slow and painful death from its injuries (this happens a lot). Also, hunting is inherently immoral because it causes an animal to suffer and die (something that does not need to happen).

One of the news articles I read said that in 2010, the photographing of animal cruelty was banned, but not the animal cruelty itself -- the news article said this new bill bans the acts themselves, in addition to the photography.
 

knotinterested

Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Yes isn't it sad that they would only ban the photographing of the crudity and leave the act itself legal. Dimwitted Lawmakers!!!

Yes I am aware that there is a large number of animals that die a slow death from being injured while they were being hunted. However their number is very low when compared to the number of animals killed during a hunting season. Since most of these animals are killed and then used for food I really don't have a problem with it. I do not agree with any kind of killing just for the purpose of recreation. I really do wish that it was some kind of law that if you kill it you have to eat it but I'm sure that will never happen.

With regard to this new law I do think it is something we are going to have to watch for to see how they are using it. If they come after the zoo community then we need to be aware immediately.
 

Zoo50

Citizen of Zooville
Yes isn't it sad that they would only ban the photographing of the crudity and leave the act itself legal. Dimwitted Lawmakers!!!

Yes I am aware that there is a large number of animals that die a slow death from being injured while they were being hunted. However their number is very low when compared to the number of animals killed during a hunting season. Since most of these animals are killed and then used for food I really don't have a problem with it. I do not agree with any kind of killing just for the purpose of recreation. I really do wish that it was some kind of law that if you kill it you have to eat it but I'm sure that will never happen.

With regard to this new law I do think it is something we are going to have to watch for to see how they are using it. If they come after the zoo community then we need to be aware immediately.
I'm a vegetarian and I don't think animals should be used for food (because it's cruel and unnecessary), but that's a different topic and I don't want to derail this thread.

I just found yet another website claiming that "sexual exploitation" of animals (e.g. sex with animals) has been banned. I don't want to provide a direct link to it -- this is the URL:

aldf.org/project/preventing-animal-cruelty-and-torture-pact-act/

If this new law does mean the authorities starting hunting down zoos, does that means zoos should leave the U.S.?

Quote made by the Humane Society of the United States (an anti-zoo organization):

"The PACT Act would enable federal authorities to crack down on the practice of bestiality, which like animal fighting and the "crush video" trade, involves a national subculture where animals are often moved across state lines and information is exchanged on websites to enable this exploitation to happen."
Quote from this URL: blog.humanesociety.org/2017/12/senate-passes-pact-act-crack-down-animal-cruelty-crimes.html

Also, an article mentions online forums in the following quote:

"Tracie Letterman with the Humane Society says the PACT Act would prohibit bestiality when there is an interstate component such as online forums"

“There’s a serious problem of bestiality on the internet, and we found one website that has over a million subscribers," Letterman explained. "And, what they're doing is buying and selling animals for bestiality purposes all over the country.”
Quotes from this URL: wtsp.com/article/news/regional/florida/animal-cruelty-and-bestiality-could-become-a-felony-as-2-florida-lawmakers-push-bill/67-707a64a7-a766-4eb1-b298-3f24a547da4f

It's such nonsense that they say there is a "serious problem of bestiality". Bestiality is not a "problem".

The following article is also full of anti-zoo nonsense, and claims the PACT Act will ban bestiality:

tpa.animalwellnessaction.org/2019/01/news-outlet-reports-that-beastforum-and-other-bestiality-sites-to-go-dark-in-february/

The above-mentioned link cites a "study" -- the "study" says that people who have sex with animals are likely to commit violent crimes and other kinds of crimes (bullshit).
 
Last edited:

Zoo50

Citizen of Zooville

caikgoch

Citizen of Zooville
What set the whole thing off was a woman making and distributing crush vids for the sadism trade. That's the sexual connection. She was located in Houston Texas and has since relocated to a Texas Department of Criminal Justice facility. Of course different people see different things in it but the ones seeing as an anti-bestiality weapon are the same ones seeing horse brothels everywhere (not strongly reality based).
 

SigmatoZeta

Citizen of Zooville
The truth is that even specific laws directed at us are paper-thin. We should be more focused on developing our social inroads.

We do have them. We have people out there that are at least not alarmed by us, even if that's just because they are not really alarmed by anything. These are people that have very steady lifestyles and never take any weird risks. They have lived smart, so they never learned fear.

We can still operate without overturning these laws. Someone that was unusually brave and bold could even be an out zoophile with these laws.

It is science fiction to assume that the cops are going to come bust down your door based on the slightest rumor that you are fucking your dog. Gay men were coming out in droves back in the 1970's, even when it was still a misdemeanor or sometimes felony. The cops were focused mostly on raids over serving liquor without proper liquor licenses or permits. Stonewall, in spite of being the subject of a rallying cry, was really a badly run establishment. While police entrapment did happen, gay men that were involved in the community were wise to those kinds of schemes. They knew where those thug cops were running these schemes and avoided them BECAUSE THEY KNEW OTHER GAY MEN THAT WERE WISE TO WHAT WAS GOING ON. It really paid to be in the know. Even when with these things going on, there were gay men that were highly regarded public figures, and the reason why the cops couldn't bother them was that the cops would have had to catch them in the act of doing something that was actually illegal. Just being attracted to men was not a crime. Having a friend come over to your house was not a crime. Having a housemate of the same sex was not a crime.

Anyhow, these laws are paper thin. The best way to handle them is to simply avoid walking up to a police officer that also happens to be a known anti-zoo moral crusader and saying "Hi, there! I have been fucking my dog for a solid six hours, and I've got her pretty sloppy. Would you like to take this convenient medical swab that I am providing you with, so you can produce evidence in court that I have been fucking my dog?" If you can manage to not do that, then your chances of anything seriously bad happening to you are pretty slim.

It might take a while for enough groundbreakers to come out and start making their presence known, but once the trend has been set by an early pioneer that is too cool for anyone to put down, more people are going to start doing it.
 

IHO

Tourist
Sorry if this was already addressed, but if you read the act that has passed the senate and is on to presidential approval, it is very specific to the whole "crushing/torture" videos thing. I see nothing in there specific to sexual exploitation. I fully support the act as written, except for a few of the "exceptions". I think anything along the lines of sexual contact/bestiality is still managed at the state-level.
 

Zoo50

Citizen of Zooville
Sorry if this was already addressed, but if you read the act that has passed the senate and is on to presidential approval, it is very specific to the whole "crushing/torture" videos thing. I see nothing in there specific to sexual exploitation. I fully support the act as written, except for a few of the "exceptions". I think anything along the lines of sexual contact/bestiality is still managed at the state-level.
Not disputing what you're saying, I just think it's puzzling that so many news articles say this new bill bans "sexual exploitation" (of animals). Is it just misinformation that got copied from one news source to another?

Perhaps the law, as written, is so broad that sex could potentially be within the scope of "serious bodily harm" (from the perspective of the anti-zoos). Maybe that is where all these claims of "sexual exploitation" being banned are coming from.
 

SigmatoZeta

Citizen of Zooville
Not disputing what you're saying, I just think it's puzzling that so many news articles say this new bill bans "sexual exploitation" (of animals). Is it just misinformation that got copied from one news source to another?

Perhaps the law, as written, is so broad that sex could potentially be within the scope of "serious bodily harm" (from the perspective of the anti-zoos). Maybe that is where all these claims of "sexual exploitation" being banned are coming from.
@Zoo50, I suggest just following a pro-zoo podcast or reading a pro-zoo blog for a while. The law cannot change for the better until we have changed society, and that has got to start with getting us coordinated. In the 1980's, my husband was one of the early coordinators for the White Parties that helped raise money to fight AIDS. It was a success because they made the parties just fun to attend. We have to find ways to get zoos interested. A lot of them think they have better things to do, so let's learn the art of cool. We see that morale is low, so let's raise morale with music and art. Change has to start with us, not in the White House. Society will not follow us until we prove that we are leaders.
 
I feel like most government officials and animal rights activist organizations (I dont have a better term) view us as monsters that rape and torture our animals. They perceive us as people that only want sex from animals, they view us like child molesters when really *most* of us care more about our animals than ourselves. They dont see that we do the same things everyone else does with their animals, we love our animals the same (maybe a little more) and treat them like people.

They see one bad thing associated with our "kind" and think that's how everyone is.
 

IHO

Tourist
Not disputing what you're saying, I just think it's puzzling that so many news articles say this new bill bans "sexual exploitation" (of animals). Is it just misinformation that got copied from one news source to another?
No worries! I've seen the same thing all over, especially with the anti-zoophiles and bigots on social media.
Here's the bill introduced to the senate.
Please let me know if maybe I overlooked something, but I didn't see anything about sex in there.
 
Last edited:

bobdobbs

Tourist
I think the media simply use "sexual exploitation" as a generic term because they don't even want to mention the horrible act of animal crush videos. The law is very specifically banning those kinds of crush videos. Previous laws only banned the interstate sale of such obscene videos, while this law targets the act itself. I wonder if it will put an end to the "animal rekt" threads on anonymous imageboards, I can only hope...
 

caikgoch

Citizen of Zooville
I think the media simply use "sexual exploitation" as a generic term because they don't even want to mention the horrible act of animal crush videos.
Nope, they use the term because it draws more clicks/viewers than any other.
 

Zoo50

Citizen of Zooville
No worries! I've seen the same thing all over, especially with the anti-zoophiles and bigots on social media.
Here's the bill introduced to the senate.
Please let me know if maybe I overlooked something, but I didn't see anything about sex in there.
As @ZTHorse said, there doesn't seem to be anything sexual in the bill (except the aforementioned sections 2241 and 2242).

In the bill, the use of the word "would" confuses me. The bill says that sections 2241 and 2242 would apply if used against persons -- yet the bill is about animals (who are generally not regarded as "persons" legally), so I'm confused. Could these two sections (being mentioned) be the reason anti-zoos say this bill bans sex with animals?

A concern I have: the language of the bill is so broad (with phrases such as "serious bodily injury") that the bill, when it becomes law, could be used to start persecuting zoos and shutting down zoo forums.

This is a quote from USA Today:

"The PACT Act would prohibit extreme acts of cruelty when they occur in interstate commerce or on federal property and cracks down on sexual abuse of animals."
Note that news organizations and anti-zoo organizations erroneously believe that all sex with animals is "abuse".
 
Last edited:

IHO

Tourist
Could these two sections (being mentioned) be the reason anti-zoos say this bill bans sex with animals?
Honestly, I have no idea. I find a lot of this stuff confusing as well. I need to read those sections.
 

Kazegami

Lurker
Yea, other than the part about "serious bodily injury", I did not see anything about sexual relations.

My guess is the creators of the bill sent out press releases about the goals of their bill and journalists just ran with it. I did notice that a couple of sites originally mentioned sexual abuse in the headline, but changed it shortly after... Perhaps a sign that some actually read it, or maybe a new release was given.
 

Zoo50

Citizen of Zooville
Yea, other than the part about "serious bodily injury", I did not see anything about sexual relations.

My guess is the creators of the bill sent out press releases about the goals of their bill and journalists just ran with it. I did notice that a couple of sites originally mentioned sexual abuse in the headline, but changed it shortly after... Perhaps a sign that some actually read it, or maybe a new release was given.
The vagueness of "serious bodily injury" worries me (meaning, could it be vague enough to make zoo a crime?)

If it turns out that this bill does not criminalize sex with animals, what if the anti-zoos create a new bill in the U.S. Congress (in the future) which is specifically anti-zoo? So, for example, what if two years from now, an anti-zoo bill is created in the U.S. Congress (a bill which would specifically ban sex with animals at the federal level)? How would zoos defend themselves against that kind of legislation?
 

knotinterested

Esteemed Citizen of ZV
The vagueness of "serious bodily injury" worries me (meaning, could it be vague enough to make zoo a crime?)

If it turns out that this bill does not criminalize sex with animals, what if the anti-zoos create a new bill in the U.S. Congress (in the future) which is specifically anti-zoo? So, for example, what if two years from now, an anti-zoo bill is created in the U.S. Congress (a bill which would specifically ban sex with animals at the federal level)? How would zoos defend themselves against that kind of legislation?
The only defense possible would be not to have to present one. In other words take every precaution not to get caught. Also if that were to happen I wonder how the things you post on websites like this can be used. Can they be enough to start an investigation on a person? I mean for the most part we here are only small shrimp in a vast ocean so would we be in danger?
 

Zoo50

Citizen of Zooville
The only defense possible would be not to have to present one. In other words take every precaution not to get caught. Also if that were to happen I wonder how the things you post on websites like this can be used. Can they be enough to start an investigation on a person? I mean for the most part we here are only small shrimp in a vast ocean so would we be in danger?
So the only way for people to deal with a potential federal anti-zoo law is to hide?

(A federal anti-zoo law would probably cause zoo websites to get shut down).
 

Korynn

Tourist
(A federal anti-zoo law would probably cause zoo websites to get shut down).
It wouldn't because the discussion of zoosexuality is protected by the first amendment. Even if nationwide laws were passed banning sex with animals, the production of material depicting sex with animals and the distribution of said material, they still can't take away your right to talk about it. Actually it would be detrimental to law enforcement to drive disussion of this subject underground, better for any investigator or task force to have people discussing these thing out in the open where they can more easily incriminate themselves.
 

ZTHorse

Administrator
Staff member
So the only way for people to deal with a potential federal anti-zoo law is to hide?

(A federal anti-zoo law would probably cause zoo websites to get shut down).
Doubt it because seriously bodily injury would have to be proven in a court of law. If the vets cannot prove "bodily" injury then actually its reversed, it makes bestiality legal because there will be no bodily injury because zoophiles dont cause trauma to the animals organs.

Imagine an anti in court trying to prove bodily harm when the vet shows that no harm was done physically. Its actually a stronger thing in court because now they are forced to prove bodily harm and not just accuse it as they do now.

In short we should use any oppourtunity if this law is applied to zoophilia to win a case that the zoo caused NO bodily harm and thus is not illegal bt federal statue. You just passed the perfect zoophilia law by case law. Zoo is legal so long as no bodily harm is done by the feds anyway. Also you atleast proved zoophilia doesnt cause physical harm.

This easily could be a huge win.
 

caikgoch

Citizen of Zooville
Doubt it because seriously bodily injury would have to be proven in a court of law. If the vets cannot prove "bodily" injury then actually its reversed, it makes bestiality legal because there will be no bodily injury because zoophiles dont cause trauma to the animals organs.

Imagine an anti in court trying to prove bodily harm when the vet shows that no harm was done physically. Its actually a stronger thing in court because now they are forced to prove bodily harm and not just accuse it as they do now.

In short we should use any oppourtunity if this law is applied to zoophilia to win a case that the zoo caused NO bodily harm and thus is not illegal bt federal statue. You just passed the perfect zoophilia law by case law. Zoo is legal so long as no bodily harm is done by the feds anyway. Also you atleast proved zoophilia doesnt cause physical harm.

This easily could be a huge win.
Look at the motorcycle helmet laws. They've been passed and overturned repeatedly on the basis that some people experience harm sometimes without one therefor all must wear them all the time.

But that happens at the state level anyway. The only justification for Federal law is when it happens in interstate commerce. That means transmission of data or something like the Mann Act.
 

Zoo50

Citizen of Zooville
It wouldn't because the discussion of zoosexuality is protected by the first amendment. Even if nationwide laws were passed banning sex with animals, the production of material depicting sex with animals and the distribution of said material, they still can't take away your right to talk about it. Actually it would be detrimental to law enforcement to drive disussion of this subject underground, better for any investigator or task force to have people discussing these thing out in the open where they can more easily incriminate themselves.
True, talking about zoo is protected, but things considered "obscene" (such as zoo porn) would probably not be protected -- meaning that websites which host zoo porn might get shut down.

Look at the motorcycle helmet laws. They've been passed and overturned repeatedly on the basis that some people experience harm sometimes without one therefor all must wear them all the time.

But that happens at the state level anyway. The only justification for Federal law is when it happens in interstate commerce. That means transmission of data or something like the Mann Act.
HSUS claims that the current PACT Act bill would ban "interstate" interactions relating to bestiality (such as online zoo forums), even though the bill seems to not contain any language directly prohibiting anything sexual (with animals).
 

knotinterested

Esteemed Citizen of ZV
It wouldn't because the discussion of zoosexuality is protected by the first amendment. Even if nationwide laws were passed banning sex with animals, the production of material depicting sex with animals and the distribution of said material, they still can't take away your right to talk about it. Actually it would be detrimental to law enforcement to drive disussion of this subject underground, better for any investigator or task force to have people discussing these thing out in the open where they can more easily incriminate themselves.
Please READ what Korynn posted because she is 100% on target.
With Federal Budgets being what they are the last thing they want to do is make things harder for themselves. Driving the forums into underground groups would make it harder and more costly for them. At most what people in the forum need to concern themselves with is that some Federal team may want to track them to see if what they are doing presents a good (Vote Getting) opportunity for them.
We're discussing things that are of a sexual nature here and not how we can make money or do scams. If that were the case then any fear of what the government might do would be firmly founded.
 
Top