• Suddenly unable to log into your ZooVille account? This might be the reason why: CLICK HERE!

Class action defamation law suit against Humane Society?

@KNOTTYBOYZ

We have figured out that HSUS is not really an animal shelter or animal rescue organization, but they are a radical activist organization that is run by someone that does not even like dogs.

I was originally sort of in the wrong, but I was really just having a nervous reaction to an encounter I had had with someone that was highly manipulative and probably dangerous. Instead of trusting my instincts and blocking this guy, I had a sort of meltdown.

In the last few posts and only in the last few posts, that same rage really would have been justified if I had directed it only toward HSUS.
 
I hear ya that when pushed we can get passionate, and I'm not a fan of big conglomerate systems as well (VCA, Veteranary Centers of America, is something I won't ever do business with because they swallow up mom and pop vet clinics and can strong arm procedures and dictate prices roughly for that dollar end, even if the animal doesn't need the procedure)

Either way us zoos are sadly in no state to stand up for ourselves, especially here in America. Sure you can speak freely and advocate all you want, but it all really depends on 2 factors; who you know in law or office that's willing to fight for you and how deep your pockets are. One day maybe we might gain a footing, but that future is to hazy to even try and predict at this point
"One day" has to start literally right now because it is going to be here in only half a lifetime. That sounds like a whole lot of forever. Well, it's not for me.

I had an older lover, and he uploaded himself into my brain like Max Headroom. He shared things with me that I am not even going to tell to anyone anonymously on here. He was a zoo, though, and he was born in 1940. I know the decades that he grew up in almost as well as he did.

Organizing how we are going to fund legal cases, in general, could seriously take decades. It would mean those of us who believe that we should do this scouring the Earth for people that would be willing to start contributing to a more comprehensive legal fund for supporting people that have been convicted based on these laws. We are talking about maybe a decade, assuming we are lucky, just to keep one 18 year old child from having to be imprisoned based on hear-say or based on some erotic fiction he wrote. To establish us having any rights at all, we would have to start right this minute.

You don't get to "one day" by waiting around for it. Whenever you see a "one day" actually finally happen, it is because someone spent half a lifetime making it happen, starting half a lifetime a go.
 
Are you still really trying to fight this battle, SigmatoZeta? A negative opinion about zoophiles is not defamation, that's constitutionally protected speech. The Humane Society hasn't accused any specific person or people of being zoophiles, and even if they did, they would have to accuse someone of being a zoophile who wasn't a zoophile in order to meet the criteria for a defamation lawsuit.

Defamation isn't someone having a view about you that you don't like. Defamation is when someone knowingly spreads false information about you to a third party with the intent of damaging your reputation.

The best you could hope for is a lawyer telling you you don't understand the law. The worse case is a lawyer who will do anything for money files a lawsuit and then the Humane Society hits you with a very easy to win anti-SLAPP motion.
 
Are you still really trying to fight this battle, SigmatoZeta? A negative opinion about zoophiles is not defamation, that's constitutionally protected speech. The Humane Society hasn't accused any specific person or people of being zoophiles, and even if they did, they would have to accuse someone of being a zoophile who wasn't a zoophile in order to meet the criteria for a defamation lawsuit.

Defamation isn't someone having a view about you that you don't like. Defamation is when someone knowingly spreads false information about you to a third party with the intent of damaging your reputation.

The best you could hope for is a lawyer telling you you don't understand the law. The worse case is a lawyer who will do anything for money files a lawsuit and then the Humane Society hits you with a very easy to win anti-SLAPP motion.
They HAVE been spreading false information, junk science. A real controlled study of zoo sex has never been conducted at all. It was only legal anywhere for a brief period, not actually long enough to generate very much scientific study on animals that belong to zoos that are mentally normal. The junk science used to validate these laws are simply false.

In fact, I am betting that this would give us grounds to overturn these laws in court. If the documents that were proposed as justification for them were patently false or flawed, then if I understand correctly, there are approaches to jurisprudence that actually do take that into account. If the law said "abuse," then the supporting documents would have to actually support the view that animal sex inherently constitutes any such thing. If those supporting documents clearly were related to the justification for the bill being passed into law, then it would be false to suggest that the bill actually fit with the stated intentions of the legislature. Under some judges, that actually does carry weight.

I think we ought to start consulting with attorneys to see what our most realistic options are.

Anyway, I am going to wait and see what else Fausty has to say before commenting further.
 
Last edited:
They HAVE been spreading false information, junk science. A real controlled study of zoo sex has never been conducted at all. It was only legal anywhere for a brief period, not actually long enough to generate very much scientific study on animals that belong to zoos that are mentally normal. The junk science used to validate these laws are simply false.

In fact, I am betting that this would give us grounds to overturn these laws in court. If the documents that were proposed as justification for them were patently false or flawed, then if I understand correctly, there are approaches to jurisprudence that actually do take that into account. If the law said "abuse," then the supporting documents would have to actually support the view that animal sex inherently constitutes any such thing. If those supporting documents clearly were related to the justification for the bill being passed into law, then it would be false to suggest that the bill actually fit with the stated intentions of the legislature. Under some judges, that actually does carry weight.

I think we ought to start consulting with attorneys to see what our most realistic options are.

Anyway, I am going to wait and see what else Fausty has to say before commenting further.

It doesn't fucking matter, that's what I'm telling you. They have not done what is required to even begin a defamation case. Who have they defamed? They have not mentioned a specific party. They have not met the legal criteria for defamation, because they have not defamed a specific person. There's no such thing as class action defamation, that's literally not a thing in US law. I don't know how else I can explain this to you.

Futhermore, they expressed an opinion, that what zoos do is abuse. That's protected speech. They believe what they say. To win a defamation suit, you have to prove that a party KNOWINGLY spread OBJECTIVELY FALSE information about a SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL.

I highly recommend you do some basic, surface level research about the legal systems you're trying to leverage here, because it's clear you have no understanding about how defamation works from a legal standpoint.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't fucking matter, that's what I'm telling you. They have not done what is required to even begin a defamation case. Who have they defamed? They have not mentioned a specific party. They have not met the legal criteria for defamation, because they have not defamed a specific person. There's no such thing as class action defamation, that's literally not a thing in US law. I don't know how else I can explain this to you.

Futhermore, they expressed an opinion, that what zoos do is abuse. That's protected speech. They believe what they say. To win a defamation suit, you have to prove that a party KNOWINGLY spread OBJECTIVELY FALSE information about a SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL.

I highly recommend you do some basic, surface level research about the legal systems you're trying to leverage here, because it's clear you have no understanding about how defamation works from a legal standpoint.
I actually am a specific individual, and the HSUS has intentionally misrepresented their supporting materials. They are making statements that they purport to be facts, not opinions. They are outright lying, and they are lying before legislative assemblies.

I really have very little idea how defamation law suits work, but as far as that is concerned, what you are saying is patently and demonstrably false. The HSUS is not merely making statements of opinion. They are also making assertions of fact.

If it is an actual fact that a specific individual would have to have been targeted, by the HSUS, then a defamation lawsuit actually would not be viable because of that.

You are simply incorrect to state that the HSUS is only making statements of opinion. Whether a class action defamation suit is possible or not, it is not and never will be a statement of opinion to present a statement as being a scientific fact.

I am not necessarily interested in the idea of litigation, anymore. I suggested this idea because I am a divergent thinker, and I tend to generate new ideas very fast. I very seldom become very attached to just one idea. If this one ever is found to be viable and actionable, then I will become interested in it again.

For right now, I am focused on waiting for the Legal Beagle episodes from the Zooier Than Thou podcast. I am hoping that they will have some more useful and more actionable ideas.
 
Last edited:
I actually am a specific individual, and the HSUS has intentionally misrepresented their supporting materials. They are making statements that they purport to be facts, not opinions. They are outright lying, and they are lying before legislative assemblies.

Have the HSUS made statements which are unambiguously directed at you, specifically? Such that a lay observer would read their comments and know that the HSUS's comments were specifically about you and no one else?
 
I’d totally ignore this guy and all the rubbish he comes out with, he says he wants to represent the zoo community but that’s shit as well ,all he wants to do is sue somebody,anybody
hes a self admitted rights activist but that was won years ago without his help and quite rightly so
all he’s doing is trying to find a new bandwagon to spout about
It could also be a lame attempt at baiting us.
 
Have the HSUS made statements which are unambiguously directed at you, specifically? Such that a lay observer would read their comments and know that the HSUS's comments were specifically about you and no one else?
I was clear in my last response to you. I will not duel with you in the defense of an idea that I later admitted had occurred to me in a moment when I was stressed and later admitted was not really soundly advised.

I later discovered, to my interest, that HSUS is not actually a real animal charity in spite of being deceptively named, so it actually would be morally justifiable to consider a counter-attack against that organization.

It sounds like you actually do know a couple of things about how the law applies to defamation, and I would otherwise welcome your insights.

I pointed out that you had stated a factual inaccuracy, and while that factual inaccuracy does not necessarily invalidate your central thesis, that "defamation law does not really work that way," it was a nitpick that I quite honestly could not help. Admittedly, it might have counter-productively led you to believe that I was still pursuing the argument that we ought to seek out a "class action defamation lawsuit," which I was not really at this point.

What has changed, thanks to new information in this discussion, is that we do not really owe any sympathy at all toward the HSUS. They are a hate group, and we ought to regard it as imperative to get other zoos to understand that they are a hate group. They are not a real animal charity. This is important information that actually did come of this discussion.

Therefore, regardless of the fact that my original proposal in this thread might not be the way forward, something useful actually did come of it, which I think actually validates @ZTHorse in his belief that we ought to have liberty to discuss more divergent ideas. Even though the original idea would be a dumb one to actually put into action, talking about it anyway actually produced something useful.
 
Last edited:
so you establish a shelter where you - with your passion - make sure you treat animals the best way you can. until then if some shelters give animals a place to be - let them be
 
Jesus, how selfish...

Organizations like this save an endless amount of animals each year, but because of their stance on zoophilia you want their assistance to our furry friends to end? You'd rather that tens of thousands, or more, animals each year don't have that organization to save them?

Sure, they may not be perfect, but I'd rather just keep under the radar about my sexuality knowing that they are doing all they can to save an endless amount of animals from homelessness/an early death.
No, they don't....at best, organizations like this administer funds. Thats AFTER the office expenses for National and regional offices, and advertising, including the boss's Ferrari are subtracted, and any contributions to re election funds have been disbursed. The game is efficient fund raising, not sheltering those critters in the infommercials, which have probably been dead for months or years. Members get a Tshirt and a photo....probably a Dollar's worth, at china import prices. At that point, whats left? Pennies do NOT run shelters. They struggle with their own expenses every day. You really want to help? Ignore the rest of this thread, and start a campaign to give any and all donations directly to your LOCAL no-kill shelters, with pledge to NEVER give a dime to ANY national system.
 
Guys, that's all backwards and it is going nowhere. If you actually want to fight HSUS in court, then get to the planning and evidence gathering. You would actually do something to help in winning the potential case and automatically shut the people opposing the idea up. What's the point of this arguing? Less talking, more doing.
 
Okay, @SigmatoZeta I can clearly see you were upset that night, but this is mixing apples and oranges. There a lot of us on this server who are fully aware of the problems of animal shelters. I could easily point out that almost all of them are overstretched for cash and always within a hair's breadth of bankruptcy or are using it to farm donations in an already alarmingly full world of things to donate to.

A lot of funding to large national shelters comes from corporations looking for tax write offs. From our current position we cannot do anything about the way shelter systems work. Veterinary supplies have been conglomerating for years and like other healthcare industries they are looking to increase the profit margin for investors. If you really want to drop veterinary care prices you need veterinary unions. If you want better animal shelters you need more funding for it as well as a healthy economy so that the typical american pet owner can actually keep their pet in good care, and you need an education system that allows for pet owners to get proper scientific evidence to base their pet care on.

I've done volunteer work at shelters, and believe me the experience of dealing with some of the most dunderheaded staff on the planet can make you really want to shut the whole thing down. The issue is they are all that's standing in the thin line of defense between the slaughter of capitalism and a stable home for hundreds of pets. They are staffed with minimum wage workers and volunteers. About 1/3 of animals that go into a shelter will die there if the last study I read on it was accurate.

Really though the issue of animal shelters and animal rescues has little to do directly with us as zoos. They are anti-zoo often enough but they generally just see the horror of what humans do to animals. I once worked with a horse covered from head to tail in whip lacerations or knife cuts, don't know which. They can't imagine the dreamy snuggle times that zoos have because it's been beaten out of them. Many animal rescue owners eventually adopt the belief that humans can't be trusted with animals in general. The belief in being opposed to pets as a concept is not uncommon in those areas. As zoos, we have the paradise they lost.

I am fully aware HSUS does terrible things. I know that in general most animal rescues I've seen are underequipped, understaffed, undertrained and underfunded. They are fundamentally though not our enemies. They lobby against things they do not understand. The path to hell is paved in the bricks of good intentions.

So what can we do? Find methods to make veterinary equipment cheaper. Find ways to make things at home for animal rescues that we can build for a fraction of the price they could buy it for. Find remote operated and automated methods of volunteering. A gift of an automatic water dish can keep on giving long after you have left, and saving labor time leads to better conditions. Offer project management advice, and share scientific studies on animal intelligence with friends and neighbors. Actions speak louder than words, and where there is suffering we must be the ones to answer the call to aide. So when the police shoot an innocent dog, be the first to demand justice. Know your local animal rescues, and try not to just blame, but fix.

It's no enough to just say you care about animals, you have to prove it to the world and yourself.
Then we need to join with the other groups that care, and build a strong united movement.
 
Okay, @SigmatoZeta I can clearly see you were upset that night, but this is mixing apples and oranges. There a lot of us on this server who are fully aware of the problems of animal shelters. I could easily point out that almost all of them are overstretched for cash and always within a hair's breadth of bankruptcy or are using it to farm donations in an already alarmingly full world of things to donate to.

A lot of funding to large national shelters comes from corporations looking for tax write offs. From our current position we cannot do anything about the way shelter systems work. Veterinary supplies have been conglomerating for years and like other healthcare industries they are looking to increase the profit margin for investors. If you really want to drop veterinary care prices you need veterinary unions. If you want better animal shelters you need more funding for it as well as a healthy economy so that the typical american pet owner can actually keep their pet in good care, and you need an education system that allows for pet owners to get proper scientific evidence to base their pet care on.

I've done volunteer work at shelters, and believe me the experience of dealing with some of the most dunderheaded staff on the planet can make you really want to shut the whole thing down. The issue is they are all that's standing in the thin line of defense between the slaughter of capitalism and a stable home for hundreds of pets. They are staffed with minimum wage workers and volunteers. About 1/3 of animals that go into a shelter will die there if the last study I read on it was accurate.

Really though the issue of animal shelters and animal rescues has little to do directly with us as zoos. They are anti-zoo often enough but they generally just see the horror of what humans do to animals. I once worked with a horse covered from head to tail in whip lacerations or knife cuts, don't know which. They can't imagine the dreamy snuggle times that zoos have because it's been beaten out of them. Many animal rescue owners eventually adopt the belief that humans can't be trusted with animals in general. The belief in being opposed to pets as a concept is not uncommon in those areas. As zoos, we have the paradise they lost.

I am fully aware HSUS does terrible things. I know that in general most animal rescues I've seen are underequipped, understaffed, undertrained and underfunded. They are fundamentally though not our enemies. They lobby against things they do not understand. The path to hell is paved in the bricks of good intentions.

So what can we do? Find methods to make veterinary equipment cheaper. Find ways to make things at home for animal rescues that we can build for a fraction of the price they could buy it for. Find remote operated and automated methods of volunteering. A gift of an automatic water dish can keep on giving long after you have left, and saving labor time leads to better conditions. Offer project management advice, and share scientific studies on animal intelligence with friends and neighbors. Actions speak louder than words, and where there is suffering we must be the ones to answer the call to aide. So when the police shoot an innocent dog, be the first to demand justice. Know your local animal rescues, and try not to just blame, but fix.

It's no enough to just say you care about animals, you have to prove it to the world and yourself.
Then we need to join with the other groups that care, and build a strong united movement.
@LeftFilly

I have evolved in my views substantially since I started this thread.

First, I am actually a lot less angry about these misguided laws than I was before, and the reason why is simple: even before these laws were created, zoos were being imprisoned and persecuted, usually based on other laws: effectively, if there was a law against "animal abuse," then zoos were imprisoned, fined, or put on registries for that, or courts would find other ways to criminalize us.

The very existence of more specific laws can be turned to our advantage, though. If more zoos start coming out, then a past conviction based on being a zoo would have less social repercussions than a conviction where a court chose to equate being a zoo with being a violent animal abuser. If we can raise awareness about zoophiles and what kinds of relationships we actually have with our animals, then I think that, eventually, these laws will be taken substantially less seriously than anti-marijuana laws, at least in areas and regions where we zoos have been actively promoting a more positive and more open relationship with the rest of society. If we can build local power bases, then this could lead to a patchwork campaign similar to that being used by pro-marijuana activists. In other words, the fact that there are specific anti-zoo laws, now, rather than just us being lumped in with violent animal-abusers, really--interestingly--gives us the benefit of being treated as a unique group of people that can therefore define ourselves based on our own choices and self-governance. Before, we did not really have a unique legal identity. This might not be how we would have wanted to receive a legal identity, but the benefit is that this is at least a base on which we can build a powerful counterculture. We would have been less able to do that as long as we were being unjustly conflated with people whose behavior was antithetical to our actual beliefs. In other words, pushing for these laws were really just an impulsive action by our enemies that just put a political weapon into our hands. It is all but impossible for them to give us a legal identity without concomitantly giving us political power.

Essentially, there is likely to be a "prohibition effect," here.

Mainly, I would follow the same protocol that pro-marijuana advocates followed, where it became functionally "legal" for people to smoke marijuana within the city limits of some US cities long before the same states reconsidered their laws. The pro-marijuana movements, in those cities, became so powerful that the police and local officials simply had to give up on attempting to enforce the laws of their states. They acted as "haven cities," essentially.

In other words, the best revenge we can get, over these unjust laws, would be to exploit them for our own benefit.
 
For years I pointed out the solution to the problem at both BF and Elite....and for years its been ignored, poopooed, and made fun of. The Crux of the Biscuit is privacy. Find candidates running on the issues that includes. Donate. You do NOT tell them why; they don't need to know. The right to privacy is Constitutional....no candidate in his right mind will argue against it. And no Candidate would refuse a donation from someone who wants to support something no one can genuinely argue against. They will see that as free money. We cant do what HSUS does....We cannot match the Corporate Donations they take in( Subaru, for example). We CAN ask for, even DEMAND privacy, as long as we keep it unconnected to our hobby. They don't NEED to know; do WE REALLY need to tell them? I dont think so. Brains usually beat Brawn. If you WANT Justice....WORK for Privacy....and y'all can quote me on that.
 
@saddlebum66 I think we should treat privacy as fundamental in this day and age anyway. You don't need to be a zoo to get accused of whacky fucked up things way worse than being a zoo. We need to protect privacy particuarly on the internet as it allows for the free expression of ideas which much increases the pace of social and technological achievement as compared to a society that has an ever pressing cloud of judgement overhead.

I don't see any of this as incompatible with what Sigma is saying though. We can have both privacy and an effective ground grassroots movement. We just need to blend in with the dozens of other movements on related topics.

We can easily engage in relationship building with things like opposition to pro-kill rescue centers that constantly kill off large numbers of the dogs and cats they rescue. Engagement with improving rescue center conditions and a dozen other things we can do to become politically active on an adjacent topic. Then once you have established credibility you stand a much better chance of winning the logical argument to follow.

There are tried and true steps to beginning a social movement. We have the advantage of being an animal ethics focused group which a lot of people already align with. You don't have to lead every argument with zoo rights, just let it come up as it will in conversations and at least be the voice that poses a counter argument to all the all zoos are bad statements. Do this enough times and eventually there will be enough non-zoo zoo supporters to have pocket enclaves where we are safer from prosecution. From enclaves then you can build out your social power and merge the topic in with more and more groups until you attain a significant social acceptance like LGBT and Marijuana did. You can do all of this while still being a privacy advocate.
 
The point Im trying to make here is simple. Apparently its too simple, But Ill restate, in brief. If we do not disengage from the idea that we can gain any form of acceptance, in any public way, we lose. If we support candidates, in those nations where that is possible, who support privacy, we can at least be safer in our own homes. If we insist on that being alongside a public identity as zoo-ish, count me, and any half smart person OUT. You will be opting for a reaction you will not be able to control. This isnt politics, now. It's the same willfulness babies show when the bottle is removed. The internet put crosshairs on our backs. We should not let the mundanes pull that trigger.
 
I hate to say this but there are reasons things are the way that they are. 1. Most people are not good pet owners and they don't take the necessary precautions to keep their pet from getting knocked up by a random dog three doors down the street, nor do they think about the cost of caring for an animal. Some are people who are abusers and their pets must be confiscated. The animals that belong to these people end up at the pound.

2. Some animals just cannot assimilate in a home environment: they bark too much for the owner, they shit all over the house, they destroy everything in the house, or they just lack the mental capacity to understand their human owners and never learn basic commands. These dogs end up at the pound.

When these animals are left to their own in the streets, they breed like rabbits and they cause an overpopulation problem. The shelters have no choice but to fix them to reduce the number of unwanted animals. I have seen the landfill where my local animal shelter dumps the animals that they cannot find homes for; it is a mountain of dead bodies. It is the most heartbreaking site that you will ever see.

Do not get me wrong, there are plenty of good animals at these places who need a good home and are the perfect companion for someone. If you are a zoo then it is not the right place for you to find your next partner.

I never want to see that mountain of dead bodies again. Pet owners should spay and neuter their pets.
 
Back
Top