Randi Rhodes Forums

PETA v. SeaWorld – The Aftermath

A leading animal law attorney discusses the fall-out from the judge’s ruling

http://www.zoenature.org/2012/02/peta-v ... aftermath/

On Wednesday, Federal Judge Jeffrey Miller ruled against the animal rights group PETA in a suit they had brought against SeaWorld. PETA claimed that five orcas at SeaWorld San Diego were being held as slaves in violation of the 13th Amendment. The judge said that the 13th Amendment didn’t apply since orcas are not “persons.”

After oral argument before the Judge last Monday, PETA’s lead attorney, Jeffrey Kerr, told the media that the case was a great victory for the animals. But animal rights attorney Steven M. Wise, president of the Nonhuman Rights Project, which is preparing to litigate the first cases to gain common law “personhood” for nonhuman animals, says the PETA case did no legal good and actually undermined the development of an emerging animal rights jurisprudence. We asked him to explain why.

Michael Mountain: A lot of people in the animal rights world are saying that even though PETA lost its lawsuit against SeaWorld, it’s a step in the right direction because it got a lot of publicity and people are talking about it all across the world. They believe that at least it accomplished something.

Professor Steven Wise: Sometimes it’s better to do nothing than to do something harmful. The problem with the PETA suit is that it was doomed from the beginning, and we in the Nonhuman
Rights Project immediately recognized that.

When you study legal process you learn that the first cases in a new area often tend to take on an unusual level of importance. When you litigate in a novel area, you want to begin with your strongest suits in the most favorable jurisdictions. The rule for the Nonhuman Rights Project is: Win big and, if we must lose, lose small. PETA had virtually no chance of even winning small and a tremendous chance of losing big.

When the Nonhuman Rights Project starts filing cases, we’ll begin by bringing strong claims in advantageous jurisdictions. What PETA did was to bring weak claims in a disadvantageous jurisdiction, and they were quickly and predictably massacred.

A problem now, in the wake of this decision, is that anyone who brings a lawsuit of any kind and argues that a nonhuman animal is a “legal person” is going to have to deal with the fact that a federal court has found that a nonhuman animal is NOT a person. We will overcome that obstacle. But it didn’t have to be erected in the first place. Until yesterday, when the case came down, that obstacle did not exist.

Orcas, slaves and the U.S. Constitution

M.M.: The PETA case was saying that the orcas are slaves under the 13th Amendment. But as I understood it the judge ruled that they can’t be considered slaves in the first place since they’re not persons. Is that right?

Prof. W.: The judge was implicitly and perhaps explicitly saying that the 13th Amendment only applies to humans. We will examine the ruling closely to see if he was saying that the 13th Amendment only applies to persons and orcas aren’t persons, or if he was saying that it only applies to humans and orcas aren’t humans, or if he was implicitly equating persons with humans. In the wake of the famous Citizens United case in which the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated that corporations have First Amendment rights, it is difficult to think he meant the last.

One problem the judge had is that PETA mistakenly believed that they would not have to prove that orcas were “persons.” They weren’t prepared to do that, even though it was the most critical aspect of the suit. The Nonhuman Rights Project understood this from the start, and that’s why we submitted a Friend of the Court memorandum. But being a Friend of the Court only allows one to act narrowly, which was one thing PETA did point out to the judge.
So the judge was left up to his own devices, whereas he should have been carefully educated by PETA’s attorney as to what the term “person” meant and how it could be applied.

What happens if PETA appeals

M.M.: Do you think PETA will appeal this now?

Prof. W.: PETA has an absolute right to appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My wife was in a meeting and a lead attorney for their co. was talking I think "I'm going to have to vote for Obama", distressed b/c he was obviously a Republican. He continued that "The Citizens United case" is going to really screw up all legal ideals of personhood. When Peta argues next time they will win personhood b/c if a corporation can be a person, so can animals. He said "the Right is nothing but crazies now. I either vote for Obama or I don't vote at all".

He was truly struggling with this new awakening in legal ramifications of Citizens United.

Just name them Orcas Inc., right? In fact if corporations are people, then by the Supreme Courts logic people are corporations and he have the same rights and benefits as they do.

I think this shows what an idiotic decision was made in Citizens United.

Why is this in Environment & Conservation ???

This Is A Legal Issue / Regarding Citizens United and implications of that from this case ... It has nothing to do with Environment/Conservation.

Animals as Persons is Not Environmental/nor Conservation oriented.

Yes it is. And in the future please address any questions to the moderators by way of report or PM. Nobody really cares for whining in open forum.

I would have to say that if PETA were to win any sort of claim, then zoos would have to close, and no one would be able to own a pet, let alone farm animals. Everyone would have to become a vegetarian, because you would not be able kill any animals for food consumption. If that were to happen I would live off the grid.

Nonhuman animals are not and cannot be legal persons.

There certainly are many laws protecting animals, laws against animal cruelty, animal testing, protection of endangered species, etc. And you can be punished for killing your neighbor's dog, but technically it's more because it is his/her property.

I'm not completely onboard with PETA - but this is a discussion people might recall from earlier RRMB incarnations. That said, I do favor ordinances protecting animals, but it's not because they're legal persons.

I used to love Penn and Teller's old magic shows; great showmanship. I have mixed feelings about "Bullshit," their polemic-laced show about, well, in their minds... "bullshit." The episode below I find crude more than edifying, and their choices of spokespeople (Dennis Prager, Ted Nugent) do little to make their point of view credible. I do agree with a lot of what they say about PETA but I think they go too far in the way they present their "evidence."

Well, all I can tell you is by far the worst episode of that show was where they did the episode on environmentalism and because they got a bunch of idiotic college students to sign a petition claiming "hydrogen dioxide" (water) was toxic, they had "debunked" environmentalism. (I guarantee none were chem majors.)

I also disagree with the episode where they attacked AA for some of its pseudoscientific methods (agree there) but then proceeded to effectively claim that drug and alcohol addiction don't really exist (absolutely disagree).

Some of it went beyond attacking pseudoscience to pushing Penn's libertarian, Cato agenda.

I also gotta confess that even though I agreed heartily with their episode on 9/11 truth, they did some serious deck stacking by finding only the biggest fools to represent the other side.

That's what always has me scratching my head about libertarians--the garden variety kind. They seem to be people who believe in "freedom" and "truth" and hate lies and bullshit... Then they start bullshitting us. lol You'd think that if they really believed in what they say, they'd be almost anal retentive about using the best sources possible but they use morons like Nugent and downright bigots like Prager.