Circus, Entertainment, Rodeos

Displaying 131 - 140 of 177
Titlesort descending Summary
Overview of Legal Implications of Dolphin and Human Interactions
Overview of Rodeos This overview provides a summary of laws dealing with rodeos. The applicable state and federal laws are discussed.
People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Bobby Berosini, Ltd.


In this Nevada case, respondent Berosini claimed that two animal rights organizations, PETA and Performing Animal Welfare Society (PAWS), and three individuals defamed him and invaded his privacy. The trial court entered judgment on jury verdicts on the libel and invasion of privacy claims in the aggregate amount of $4.2 million. On appeal, this Court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict and reversed the judgment. The court found that the videotapes of Berosini beating his animal performers before the show was not libelous because they were not false or defamatory. The videotape was not “false” because it was an accurate portrayal of the manner in which Berosini disciplined his animals backstage before performances and it was not not defamatory because Berosini took the position that the shaking, punching, and beating that appear on the tape were necessary, appropriate and “justified” for the training, discipline, and control of show animals. With regard to his invasion of privacy claims, the videotaping did not invade the scope of Berosini's expectation of privacy because his asserted expectation was "freedom from distracting intrusion and interference with his animals and his pre-act disciplinary procedures." Thus, the filming did not intrude upon Berosini's

expected

seclusion.

People v. Bergen


Defendant, a journalist, attempted to film a dogfight for an investigative story on dogfighting following the passage of a Denver ordinance forbidding the ownership of bull terriers (pitbulls).    Defendant videotaped two separate fights and dogs "training" by running on treadmills.  After the story aired, public outcry lead to a police investigation as to the source of the dogfighting footage, which lead to the arrest of the defendant and her cameramen for dogfighting and perjury.


Perplexing Precedent: United States v. Stevens Confounds a Century of Supreme Court Conventionalism and Redefines the Limits of "Entertainment"


The purpose of this Note is to consider the widespread implications of United States v. Stevens. Specifically, this Note will consider the likelihood of future findings of a compelling governmental interest, the level of harm required when balancing competing interests, Congress's ability to supplement ineffective laws, and the Court's ability to recognize new categories of speech unworthy of even basic First Amendment protection.

Proyecto Amparo en revisión 630, 2017
Proyecto de Resolución del Amparo en Revisión 630/2017 - Mexico
Redefining The Modern Circus: A Comparative Look At The Regulations Governing Circus Animal Treatment And America's Neglect Of Circus Animal Welfare First, this article explains how animals have entertained people for centuries. Next, the article addresses how animals are treated in the modern circus industry. Then, this article discusses the laws governing the circus industry both in the United States and in other countries. Lastly, this article explains where the animals may retire if the circus industry is prohibited from holding animals captive.
Relatoría 00022-2018-AI, 2020 - Peru Esta relatoria discutió cuestiones de constitucionalidad contra la Ley 30407, que permite las peleas de gallos y las corridas de toros en nombre del carácter cultural.
RI - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Laws (Chapter 1. Cruelty to Animals) These Rhode Island statutes comprise the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. The cruelty law provides that whoever overdrives, overloads, overworks, tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, or cruelly beats, mutilates or kills any animal is subject to imprisonment up to 11 months, or a fine of $50.00 - $500, or both. The intentional cruelty provision expands the penalty to 2 years possible imprisonment or a fine of $1,000, or both.

Pages