FaceBook Refuses To Take Down Graphic Animal Abuse Photos & Videos

[red dog 1]

Source:
Care 2 Petition Site


The following is FaceBook's description of "Graphic Content"
"People use FaceBook to share events through photos and videos.
We understand that graphic imagery is a regular component of current events,
but must balance the needs of a diverse community.
SHARING ANY GRAPHIC CONTENT FOR SADISTIC PLEASURE IS PROHIBITED."


Animal rights activists have been trying to remove (by reporting) FaceBook sites that have the clear and intentional purpose of abusive behavior, including graphic content.
"Skinning Animals Alive"...."Inserting Fireworks Into Live Animals"....."Strangling Live Animals".
"Sexually Abusing Animals"..."Provoking Others To Harm Animals"..and "Animal Hate" sites.

Photos and videos of animals, mainly dogs and cats, show horrific abuse; yet FaceBook refuses to remove them.

FaceBook's reply:
"Thanks for your recent report of a potential violation on FaceBook.
After reviewing your report, we were not able to confirm that the specific page that you report violates FaceBook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities."

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/722/714/330/remove-facebook-sites-that-promote-intentional-animal-abuse/

[ZombieHorde]

1. Part of me wants to go and judge for myself,

and part of says those videos are not a good way to spend my time today and I should just take their word on it.

[polly7]

2. Signed, ty. I can't believe any abuse pic is allowed to stay for longer than it takes to

report it on FB. What the heck is wrong with them!?

[red dog 1]

5. "What the heck is wrong with them?"....Excellent question.

Thanks for caring enough to sign.

FaceBook closing stock prices gets media attention on a daily basis; but FaceBook allowing videos that show dogs & cats being skinned alive, strangled, sexually abused, and having fireworks inserted into them apparently is not "newsworthy".
..I was unable to find any media outlets covering this story..

I wonder what Mark Zuckerberg thinks about this?

[get the red out]

3. OMG

People film themselves torturing innocent pets, post it on FB and the law and FB think that's just dandy? If I looked at any of that I would be looking to commit murder.

I wish the identities of the people posting this horror could be found and them prosecuted. I am getting to the point where I despise humanity.

[red dog 1]

6. Perhaps in this case, FaceBook itself needs to be prosecuted.

It seems to me that by allowing such graphic, intentional animal abuse, FaceBook may be in violation of federal law.

[get the red out]

8. I would be happy with that

If FaceBook wants to permit that kind of posting I hope they cease to exist, even though I make use of FB myself.

[red dog 1]

9. Perhaps FaceBook is in violation of the Federal Animal Welfare Act?

Last edited Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:24 AM - Edit history (2)

"The Animal Welfare Act was signed into law in 1966. It is the only federal law in the United States that regulates the treatment of animals in research, exhibition, transport, and by dealers.
Other laws, policies, and guidelines may include additional species coverage or specifications for animal care and use, but all refer to the Animal Welfare Act as the minimal acceptable standard.
The Act is enforced by the USDA's Animal and Plant Inspection Service" (APHIS)

[mercuryblues]

4. kick

[a kennedy]

7. kicking. eom

[flvegan]

10. Auntie ALF is watching. n/t

[red dog 1]

11. "Sharing any graphic content for sadistic pleasure is prohibited."

Last edited Thu Apr 4, 2013, 03:09 AM - Edit history (1)

FaceBook is in violation of it's own rules.