Harvard grad,Mills+Racketeering

If you read this entire article, you will know more about first amendment law and HSUS losing at the Supreme Court 2-3 times:

(1)Violent videos,from CA, legislators passed, HSUS pushing law, found unconstitutional,  first Amendment, completely struck down; HUGE SUPREME COURT RULING

(2) Crush films involving animals, back East, legislature passed, HSUS pushing law, many years ago;  First Amendment, unconstitutional and applied improperly, completely  struck down;  HUGE SUPREME COURT RULING

(3) Downer livestock, from CA, legislature passed, HSUS pushing law; challenged and  lost on appeal, fully lost at  United States Supreme Court, Federal Preemption)…….. NOT HUGE BUT STILL A WIN AT THE SUPREME COURT

Usually, the animal law text books don’t focus on such cases since that might deter AR students from moving forward; instead, they may mention that some cases were lost, but still teach students that if the “commercialization” of animals was outlawed, should the animals all be (a) euthanized (b) sterilized) (c) put in sanctuary? Clearly all 3 mean the same end result. They then urge students to possibly think of other ways to get the same results without quite doing exactly what we just listed.

images (44)

Thus now you know why HSUS uses all the same tactics to gain the same result—eradication of breedings, showing,sales and allowing THEM to control the laws re animals.

IF you have never read the animal law case textbook (which most people have not read) then you would never know how they teach animal law.


NOW—If you were a Harvard grad, and wrote a legal white paper on “mills”  and what fights were had in Missouri (which included HSUS)  yet you didn’t have the knowledge to not use such slang (p mills) —  since it is not a legal term to begin with, and you likely didn’t even know when citing HSUS as your knowledge legal source,  that both  HSUS and ASPCA, also cited in footnotes, were BOTH charged with civil RACKETEERING charges and paid out millions of bucks…………..on an animal case, no less??   Yes, they settled rather than go to trial because they would lose their asses.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/animal-rights-groups-court-ordered-to-pay-circus-15.7-million-file-suit-against-insurers-who-cancelled-them-in-2010/article/2550518  (and now AR groups suing to force their insurance to pay, even tho they knew insurance was not going to pay)

When the ASPCA and the May 15 settlements are tallied, the animal rights movement has now paid Ringling Bros. a total of $25.2 million. Feld’s attorneys claim it represents the largest verdict or settlement made by the ASPCA or the HSUS

Here is the white paper by the student with law degree:


This is just another reason why many of the so-called “legal” writers who write about animal law in white papers prove, time and again, they pretty much do their research by citing groups like HSUS, and ASPCA. But the grad here, went to Washington University School of Law, B.A. 2010……..so no surprise there— totally AR leaning, for sure……..

Oh sure there are animal scientific papers done which prove that early spay neuter is detrimental in many cases, that microchips and RFID stuff is not a good idea, that over vaccinating is not so keen, and that dear cropping is not a crime, but could be if your local city says it is……..but no one seems to even know about it????

And yeah, yeah, yeah, trying to analyze AR propaganda doesn’t work so well when you don’t know  (or admit) the AR agenda to begin with, you didn’t even mention the vegan theory that has run throughout history with their vegan campaign.

Once that is ignored because one didn’t  know  or purposely left out, and one believes that one’s dog is one’s best friend (obviously not human)– which is in the first footnote– then no surprise to find that using the pejorative “p mill” shows complete lack of understanding the AR agenda—OR–ignoring it on purpose.

WHY on earth would anyone (esp a Harvard grad)  write about the political and legislative nuances of what groups did what and “how” they failed—when it is a known fact that HSUS + ASPCA can easily afford the most expensive advertising/strategist in the world, to simply clobber ANY other campaign propaganda?

The Harvard grad is citing them  (mostly AR groups) for Gods’s sake, in footnotes?

Therefore that tells us that she either  doesn’t know very much about either HSUS, ASPCA, racketeering, federal cases taking 15 years of Federal Court time, breeders that can’t sell due to bad laws written by HSUS, the Supreme Court cases that have struck down no less then THREE of HSUS laws (violent videos, crush films/animals, free speech [historical video re  dogs/fighting ])……….. or she’s ignoring all of it…


Instead, the grad just tries to analyze why the ARs failed to get what they really wanted.

Well– we can tell ya why, it’s because

H$U$ and friends simply didn’t want to spend

more $money$ to fight back against big AG.  

It would not have taken 27 pages to tell anyone that.

Nevertheless— when you cite groups as your source of unreliable information to start with, and then tell us why they didn’t make the grade–we suggest you (the grad) become much better informed on “sources”  like HSUS before you cite them and then also state your dog is your best friend in the first footnote.

Harvard means money and intelligence but it doesn’t mean you’re necessarily right. 

Again, we see the consistent program in action, of either failing to mention, purposeful exclusion, or blatant ignorance. Your choice.  And this is called “legal” writing. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it’s legal all right. But is it actually correct?

Note: We do admit at FN#49, the grad does mention that there is a  seeming correlation between animal abuse and domestic violence….

While somewhat true, this theory was insufficient to bolster HSUS’ theory that violent videos cause harm, (losing at US Supreme Court on it…)   while HSUS ignored cartoons, movies, theatre, shows, TV, Netflix,  etc.  (a CA case by HSUS, appealed to the SCOTUS and then published when struck down by same..)  The People (Attorney General, CA) were pushing for validation of their “violent video law”  by HSUS who got Senator Leland Yee (convicted of  racketeering in 2016) to push this law…..which PASSED…..the gaming businesses then sued to stop the law…

For example, see: (this is all on Wiki)

The VSDA filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California … U.S. District Judge Ronald M. Whyte cited in his preliminary decision: “The plaintiffs have shown at least that serious questions are raised concerning the States’ ability to restrict minors’ First Amendment rights in connection with exposure to violent video games, including the question of whether there is a causal connection between access to such games and psychological or other harm to children.”[14]

In August 2007, Judge Whyte ultimately ruled for the plaintiffs, holding that the law violated the First Amendment, and that there was an insufficient showing of proof that either video games differed from other media or that there was established causality between violent video games and violent behavior.[23]

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s Summary Judgment for the VSDA by holding:

  1. The Act is a presumptively invalid content-based restriction on speech, so it is subject to strict scrutiny and not the “variable obscenity” standard from Ginsberg v. New York.[26]
  2. The Act violates rights protected by the First Amendment because the state has not demonstrated a compelling interest, has not tailored the restriction to its alleged compelling interest, and there exists a less-restrictive means that would further the State’s expressed interest.[27]
  3. The Act’s labeling requirement is unconstitutionally compelled speech under the First Amendment because it does not require the disclosure of purely factual information, but compels the carrying of the State’s controversial Opinion.[27]

The court first addressed the VSDA’s argument that the entire Act should be invalidated based on the defendant’s concession on appeal that the definition of “violent video game” in the Act is unconstitutionally broad.

However, the statute had a severability clause[28] so the court went through the severability test set forth inHotel Employees & Rest. Employees Int’l Union v. Davis.[29]

The court held that the definition for “violent video game” is grammatically and functionally separable because, as an alternative definition of “violent video game,” it can be removed from the Act without affecting the wording or function of the Act’s other provisions.[27]

These definition sections were only included to avoid the possibility that a court would rule the terms unconstitutionally vague; the court found that the legislature would still have enacted the statute without this definition section.[27]

The court next went on to determine what level of scrutiny should be applied in reviewing the Act’s prohibitions. The defendants insisted that the “variable obscenity” standard from Ginsberg v. New Yorkshould be used.[26]

However, the court held that the “variable obscenity” standard does not apply to violence.

The Court in Ginsberg was careful to place substantive limits on its holding, and concern in Ginsberg regarded only “sex material,” not violence. The court declined to extend the application of the “variable obscenity” standard to violence, so strict scrutiny was applied instead.[27]
In applying the strict scrutiny standard, the court recognized that “content-based regulations are presumptively invalid,”[31] and to survive invalidation, the Act had to fulfill two qualifications:

  1. Restrictions “must be narrowly tailored to promote a compelling Government interest.”
  2. “If a less restrictive alternative would serve the Government’s purpose, the legislature must use that alternative.”[32]

The court invalidated the statute on both accounts.

First, the court said that in considering its decision, the court limited the purpose of the Act to the actual harm to the brain of a child playing a violent video game. As a result, the state was required to show that “the recited harms are real, not merely conjectural, and that the regulation will in fact alleviate these harms in a direct and material way.”[33]

Here, the defendants failed to do so because all of the reports they relied on in making these claims were admittedly flawed.[34][35][36] While the state is allowed to protect minors from actual psychological or neurological harm, it is not permitted to control minors’ thoughts.

Second, the court held that the defendants did not demonstrate the absence of less restrictive alternative means. In fact, video games already comply with a voluntary rating system that rates video games based on their topics and age appropriateness. This is a clear example of a less restrictive means. The court noted that the least restrictive means is not the same as the most effective means.[27]

The court also evaluated the constitutionality of the Act’s labeling provision, which requires that a label be affixed to the front of every package the state deems to be a “violent video game.” Generally, “freedom of speech prohibits the government from telling people what they must say.”[37]

However, the court has upheld compelled commercial speech where it is the inclusion of “purely factual and uncontroversial information” in advertising.[38] However, the labeling requirement of “violent video game” is not factual information.

The Act has not clearly and legally provided a way to determine if a video game is violent so the sticker does not convey factual information. Consequently, the court found that the Act is unconstitutional.[27]


Justices questioned whether violent video games should be treated differently from other media with similar violence regularly exposed to minors, such as the fairy tale of Hansel and Gretel.

The fact that the Court accepted this case was considered surprising, based on the previous case record for such violent video game laws that were unanimously overturned in other states.[18][40]

Analysts believe that because the Court agreed to hear this case, there are unanswered questions between the protection of free speech from the First Amendment, and the legal enforcement of protecting minors from unprotected free speech such as through restrictions on the sales of pornography to minors.[18][41]

Just a week prior to the acceptance of the certiorari, in United States v. Stevens the Court overturned another law that sought restrictions on depictions of animal cruelty, which some analysts felt would reflect the Court’s position to likely overturn the violent video game law.[40][41] 


This case (United States v Stevens) was published in every single  major national newspaper and online as one of the biggest free speech cases ever………….EVER……..and HSUS lost………..then ARs ranted about it…….

The Progress & Freedom Foundation and the Electronic Frontier Foundation together submitted an amicus brief citing social research that declared Super Mario Bros. to be a violent video game.

It was compared to Mighty Mouse and Road Runner, cartoons that depict a similar form of violence with little negative reaction from the public.[19][43] Video game developers Microsoft andActivision Blizzard supported the ESA effort.[44]

Industry associations for musical works, movies, and publishing, including the National Association of Broadcasters, the Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, and the Future of Music Coalition, also submitted briefs to the court in favor of striking down the law, fearing that should the law found to be constitutional, their industries would also be affected.[45][46]

Associations for the protection of civil rights, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Coalition Against Censorship, and the National Youth Rights Association, submitted amicus briefs.[44][47]

Also filing amicus briefs against the State of California was a coalition of other states including Rhode Island, Arkansas, Georgia, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Washington, as well as Puerto Rico, which stated the law was unnecessary as no evidence linked video games to youth violence and the voluntary ESRB system was working well.[48]

Also submitting an amicus brief opposing the law was a coalition of 82 psychologists, criminologists, medical scientists and media researchers concerned that the State of California had misrepresented the science on video games.[49] ((This is where the HSUS theory that a correlation between animal abuse and people abuse exists, but really what that means is that a demented person that might harm people might harm animals. It isn’t science that is needed to figure that out.)

The State of California was joined by eleven other States, including those that had passed laws later declared unconstitutional; the States, in an amicus brief, stated that they are “vitally interested in protecting the welfare of children and in helping parents raise them” but the District Court’s decision restricts their authority to do so.[50] Further supporting the State of California were the American Academy of Pediatrics, the California Psychological Association, Common Sense Media, and the Eagle Forum.[44]

Oral arguments were held on November 2, 2010. To California’s attorney, the Justices voiced concern on the distinction between video games and other commercial works such as films and comic books.

Justice Antonin Scalia wondered if the law with its vague definition of “violence” could also be applied to Grimm’s Fairy Tales.[45]

Justice John G. Roberts Jr. argued that while companies can provide parental filters on such violent games, “any 13-year-old can bypass [them] in about five minutes.”[40] Several questions centered on the controversial game Postal 2, where the player can urinate on non-player characters and set them ablaze, among other violent acts.[51]The Justices, in general, agreed that upholding California’s law would require a “novel extension of First Amendment principles to expressions concerning violence.”[40]

On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 opinion striking down the California law (by HSUS) as unconstitutional on the basis of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The majority opinion was authored by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Justices Ginsburg, Kennedy, Sotomayor, and Kagan. It first held that “video games qualify for First Amendment protection”:

Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas—and even social messages—through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player’s interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection.

Justice Scalia then affirmed that, while states may pass laws to block obscene material from minors as previously decided in the 1968Ginsberg v. New York case, “speech about violence is not obscene,” and California’s statute was unlawful.[52]

The decision pointed to fairy tales like those of the Brothers Grimm, which are regularly given to children to read, “contain no shortage of gore” that are also present in video games.[53] The decision further compared video games to classical works like The Divine Comedy, stating that “Even if we can see in them nothing of any possible value to society[…], they are as much entitled to the protection of free speech as the best of literature.”[54]

Scalia’s decision also stated that the current self-moderated industry standards like the ESRB are operated effectively to regulate the sale of more mature games to minors, and that “filling the remaining modest gap in concerned-parents’ control can hardly be a compelling state interest” requiring a law to enforce.[55]

The Court’s decision also determined that from the evidence, there was no “compelling” link between violent video games and its effects on children.[56]

The decision cited one medical report that asserted that cartoons like Looney Tunes generate the same effects in children as in games like Sonic the Hedgehog or imagery of guns.[53]


The Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments in National Meat Association v. Harris, the meat industry’s challenge of a 2008 California law that requires slaughterhouses to immediately euthanize “downer” animals who are too sick to stand up and walk to their own deaths. [In other words, non-ambulatory animals cannot be sold for human consumption.]

The Sonoma County, California-based Animal Legal Defense Fund, along with the Humane Society of the U.S. and Farm Sanctuary, intervened in the case to defend California’s law, which stops  farmers from beating, shocking, and dragging downed pigs to slaughter. The case—a rare instance of the Supreme Court deciding on a case relating specifically to legal protection for animals….

The National Meat Association (NMA) and other trade groups want California’s law declared unconstitutional,  claiming that comparatively weak federal regulations—rather than California law—should control the issue under preemption.

California’s downed animal law was prompted by revelations that cows at Chino, California’s Westland/Hallmark Meat Co. had been beaten, shocked, dragged by chains, etc. by workers attempting to get them to stand for slaughter.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s judgment that had upheld the California law. According to the Supreme Court, California imposed additional or different requirements on slaughterhouses. Under federal law, a slaughterhouse may find a non-ambulatory animal fit for human consumption, but under California’s law, a slaughterhouse must euthanize all non-ambulatory animals and exclude them from the human food supply. This discrepancy was the fatal flaw in the California “downer animal” rule.


According to the New York Times, the Supreme Court might just overturn the law due to its purported conflict with federal law.  See The New York Times article dated November 9, “Justices Likely to Overturn California Law against Slaughtering Downed Animals.” [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/us/politics/justices-likely-to-overturn-california-law-against-slaughtering-downer-animals.html]

WELL–none of us went to Harvard. But we knew all of this years ago.