Slashdot Mirror
Lawsuits Seek To Turn Chimpanzees Into Legal Persons
sciencehabit writes "This morning, an animal rights group known as the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) filed a lawsuit in a New York court in an attempt to get a judge to declare that chimpanzees are legal persons and should be freed from captivity. The suit is the first of three to be filed in three New York counties this week. They target two research chimps at Stony Brook University and two chimps on private property, and are the opening salvo in a coordinated effort to grant 'legal personhood' to a variety of animals across the United States. If NhRP is successful in New York, it would upend millennia of law defining animals as property and could set off a 'chain reaction' that could bleed over to other jurisdictions, says Richard Cupp, a law professor at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California, and a prominent critic of animal rights. 'But if they lose it could be a giant step backward for the movement. They're playing with fire.'"
(Full text)
Heinlein saw this coming in 1947.
Free Martian Whores!
Does this mean they will be able to vote?
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
I'm sorry but there's no difference between livestock (chicken, cows, horses, etc...) and experiment sujects (mice, chimps, dogs, etc...)
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
Chimps are no more legal persons than corporations are. Oh wait...
...if such a thing passes, am I the only one who sees a potential push for marriage laws to be adapted similarly?
Before you freak out totally, I'm not necessarily referring to anything involving humans in the mix, but think of such things as racehorse/purebred animal breeding and etc.
Could become one hell of a can of worms... (oh, wait, that brings up another thought - are worms eventually getting rights too?)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
...I read "Lawsuits Seeks To Turn Lawyers into Chimpanzees".
Well if they all get out their typewriters and start randomly typing.....
Do you think they'd come up with Obamacare?
Oh wait...
If freed, chimpanzees would be unable to follow basic laws and would likely need to be locked up in imprisonment anyway.
If politicians are considered people, chimps certainly would qualify.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Where exactly do they plan on releasing these chimps at? NYC? These animals likely cannot be returned to the wild and would likely face certain death in the wilderness, or the urban jungle for that matter....
This decision will also be used precedence by the machines to decide how humans should be treated post-singularity. Choose wisely.
I'll start: "You blew it up! You BASTARDS!"
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
As soon as animals can be reasonably expected to understand a contract and uphold their side of it, I'll care about whether they have the legal grounds to enter into them.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
On what basis do they draw the line of 'the amount' of self-conciousness between chimps and humans on the one hand and other primates, such as orangutans, gorillas, bonobos, on the other? Have they even quantified it at all? And what about dolphins and elephants?
So, then, we need to put a "rights exist" guy and and "rights don't exist" guy in a cage match to the death, and whoever wins, that's how we know what's true.
Right?
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Nope. Chimps aren't human, and don't deserve civil rights. Especially not Second Amendment rights. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhxqIITtTtU )
But seriously, that doesn't mean we're free to treat 'em badly. We tend to draw a black-and-white distinction between persons and nonpersons. If it's a nonperson, we can do whatever we want with it, torture, butchery, it's all good. But it's not that simple. Living things exist on a spectrum of intelligence and "person-ness", from bacteria to plants to fish to cats to chimpanzees (and from fertilized egg to full-term fetus, if you want to go there). Our morality needs to reflect that.
So no, chimps don't get rights. But they should get the respect they're due as almost-persons.
Corporations are run by and owned by people, not by machines. They are treated as legal persons for very good reasons that go back hundreds of years for certain purpose. The Citizen United case was about speech, which the First Amendment allows regardless of the source. (Seriously, read the 1st Amendment. It just says "speech.") People also have freedom of association rights and their individual rights don't go away when they form groups.
Do you think the New York Times or Slashdot can get censored because the freedom of the press doesn't apply to them because they are owned by corporations?
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
As soon as animals can be reasonably expected to understand a contract and uphold their side of it, I'll care about whether they have the legal grounds to enter into them.
Well that rules out corporations....
Seems to me all a chimpanzee needs to do is incorporate, and then they'd be a legal person, just as corporations are people.
Unless ... corporations aren't people?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Gain? You must be new here!
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Old myth, often repeated, with no scientific basis. Based on Functional MRI dolphins are about as smart as pigs. The extra grey matter is sonar processing.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Step 1: declare chimps person and demand they be released
Step 2: arrest now-homeless person-chimps for trespassing
Step 3: make incarcerated person-chimps do whatever they were doing before as prison labor
As humans, I believe we have a responsibility to treat creatures with a humane stewardship but this lawsuit is pushing an agenda other than humane stewardship. This is the exact kind of thing which makes people roll their eyes every time a vegetarian speaks up about the living conditions of feed-lot beef, or the destruction of bottom trawling and bycatch.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
That's wrong. Chimps, for example, are a different species; chimps and humans can't have offspring. Their brains are obviously quite different. They are also vicious and aggressive animals.
US laws are based on Enlightenment philosophy, not religion. As such, they are a mix of social contract, classical liberalism, and human rights. Enlightenment philosophers generally recognized that animals could suffer and that humans had some moral responsibility towards them, but did not generally recognize them as persons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights#John_Locke.2C_Immanuel_Kant
I saw this coming when I decided on a sig line.
I imagine that chimps imprisoned in human jails might make some interesting reality TV shows.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
> Corporations are run by and owned by people, not by machines. They are treated as legal persons
_...because it benefits corporations and corporations have lots of money and with that money comes power. This is a condition that predates our nation (USA).
A corporation is not a person. It is is a MOB constructed to shield that mob from the legal consequences of their actions.
As an entity with limited legal responsibilites, it should also have similarly limited rights.
It's kind of like a child or a chimp in this respect.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Will those chimps be required to petition for citizenship? If they are given citizenship will they be required to pay taxes? Will they be required to get Affordable Healthcare?
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Personhood implies social responsibility.
This is much more than paying taxes, it involves a wide range of social interactions including employment, self-reliance, participation in government etc.
Chimps if "released" could not function in our society. Releasing them into the wild would be a death sentence for most lab animals.
They would still need to be cared for, and are unlikely to be able to contribute much.
I do not see how a judge could make a finding of personhood under (what little I know of) American law.
...there is hope for me, a code monkey !
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Use to be that a person owed a dog no better treatment than they did a chair or silverware. The idea of animals as mere "chattel" has been slowly chipped away at over time. As people have come to view animals as having a higher status than a bookshelf, the law has slowly moved the same way. Animal abuse is generally a crime everywhere. Further the state can take away animals from people who mistreat them.......the same is not true for one who "mistreats" their wooden desk, no matter how public and violent the act may be.
The risk that these animal rights activist face is that of setting unfavorable precedent which, under the legal concept of stare decisis, could serve as a roadblock to courts future recognitions of animal "rights". There are also a myriad of peripheral issues that such a finding would raise. If a chimp is legally considered a person, what is their citizenship? Does the U.S. Constitution apply to them? Can they vote? The list goes on.
Corporate personhood derives from the personhood of the people who constitute the corporation. Corporations have free speech rights because their share holders have, and the share holders (by virtue of buying shares in the corporation) have chosen the corporation to speak for them. When they want the corporation to stop speaking for them, they sell their shares.
Why shouldn't groups of people be able to get together and voice their political opinions in the form of a corporation?
Does that mean they have to attend school? Do they have to pay taxes? Can they apply for unemployment benefits? Are they recognised as citizens? Can they not be discriminated based on race/species? Is throwing poop protected by freedom of speech?
Stop being fucking stupid you animal huggers.
I work with children. I wouldn't mind seeing a few of them experimented on.
Judging by some of what I've seen in the local Walmart, some people are closer than others...
There is a much better argument that a fetus is a person and deserves protection under the law but the anti-abortion types haven't managed to get that idea recognized by the courts or enacted as law through the ballot box. I don't agree with their argument or what the anti-abortion types are trying to do by making it but I can still see some validity to their argument. Given that the courts have considered whether a fetus is a person from the moment of conception and said "no", I don't see the courts granting "personhood" to chimpanzees.
O/T: This does give rise to an amusing situation. The folks who push "personhood" for a fetus would probably vehemently oppose granting the same designation to a chimpanzee (fundamentalists see man as on a whole different level than other animals). Likewise, the people pushing personhood for chimps would be some of the more liberal types and would probably be very "pro-choice".
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
I view PETA as a core of crazy surrounded by well-intentioned and reasonable animal lovers who just don't realise how batshit insane the leaders are.
It's well documented that some animals have the mental capacity of a typical 3 year old human child. (See Alex the african grey parrot, Koko the gorilla, etc.)
Not to mention dogs, i.e. Chaser the border collie who's been taught over 1000 words.
(mute volume) http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/world-smartest-dog-nova-special-shows-border-collie/story?id=12875750
You don't have to understand a contract to be a legal person with rights. That's how lawyers justify their existence.
Of course, they'd have to be represented pro-bono. Bo.
> They are treated as legal persons for very good reasons that go back hundreds of years for certain purpose.
Total nonsense. Corporations became legal persons OVER time based on greed TO LIMIT LIABILITY. Corporations want all the benefits and do everything in their power to avoid having to pay for them.
Date Decision, Legal Right Affirmed
1889 "Minneapolis and St. L. R. Co. v. Beckwith", Right for judicial review on state legislation
1893 "Noble v. Union River Logging R. Col", Right for judicial review for rights infringement by federal legislation
1906 "Hale v. Henkel", Protection "against unreasonable searches and seizures (4th)
1908 "Armour Packing C. v. United States", Right to trial by jury (6th)
1922 "Pennsylvania Coal Co. V. Mahon", Right to compensation for government takings
1962 "Fong Foo v. United States", Right to freedom from double jeopardy (5th)
1970 "Ross v. Bernhard", Right to trial by jury in civil case (7th)
1976 "Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Consumer Council)", Right to free speech for purely commercial speech (1st)
1978 "First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti", Right to corporate political speech (1st)
1986 "Pacific Gas and Electric Company v. Public Utility Commn of California", Right against coerced speech (1st)
Reference:
* A Short History of the Corporation
http://cnx.org/content/m17314/latest/
Also see:
http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=314
Specifically, "The Corporation complete film transcript (PDF)"
http://hellocoolworld.com/files/TheCorporation/Transcript_finalpt1%20copy.pdf
http://hellocoolworld.com/files/TheCorporation/Transcript_finalpt2%20copy.pdf
To add to my previous point ...
First, a corporation is effectively a psychopath
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5hEiANG4Uk
Secondly, Corporations pay no death tax (estate tax) because corporations NEVER die. That fact right there is a HUGE problem. It slowly strips the wealth (power) out of individuals and consolidates it -- that is total anathema to the original intent of State and Federal separation and balance of power.
Thirdly, Corporations at one time were PROHIBITED from owning another corporations; again to PREVENT consolidation of power.
Fourth, Corporations can effectively print their own currency via stocks.
Fifth, the value of a Company's stock is IMAGINARY worth. The fact that a company's value can fluctuate wildly over night means the value is a total sham.
Sixth, quoting http://www.uuworld.org/ideas/articles/157829.shtml
--
The best thing about America? Capitalism! The worst thing about America? Capitalism!
That's the Declaration of Independence, a declaration to a Christian nation and potentate. Using a generic term like "creator" seems a reasonable compromise to convey the idea. The argument isn't rooted in Christian theology at all, it is self-evident, and the "creator" might just refer to deism, not Christianity.
Because evolution happens at the level of species, and a priori, chimps are a species that we are in competition with (of course, they lost long ago). Human social structures, empathy, justice, and morality in human relationships are built into all of us through evolution (our "creator") because they are useful. So, if you want to extend notions of human justice and morality to other species, you need to make a utilitarian argument for that. People have done that, and it roughly ends up where we are today: we outlaw animal cruelty (because of the bad effect it has on people), but we don't outlaw the killing or use of animals for scientific purposes, labor, or food. I don't see any reason to revisit that.
So, if humans can sue to say that monkeys are not property, but deserve rights as humans, then what is to stop my cat from suing to have me legally declared it's property and servant? After all, that would only be making the de facto the de jure.
Thirdly, Corporations at one time were PROHIBITED from owning another corporations; again to PREVENT consolidation of power.
If corporations keep pressing forward toward legal personhood, I wonder if you could make a 13th amendment argument against them owning other corporations...
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
So chimpanzee rampages through the streets of Manhattan killing some civilians, is put on trial (being a person and all) and is found to be mentally incompetent and placed in a special home with bars for the rest of its life. Or otherwise is found competent to stand trial and is still placed behind bars. Meanwhile a "back to Africa for chimpanzees" is started except that the law prohibits deporting persons born in the US. Later the Supreme Court rules that chimpanzee poop thrown at the president was a legitimate form of free speech, which becomes a milestone in the decline of civilization.
That is a VERY interesting line of thinking! The lawyers no doubt would be against it but that might be one way to covertly change the current corrupt system. The bigger problem is finding an honest judge who is aware of the problems corporations create. The other problem is that corporations want to play the pseudo-person card: They are a person when it suits them, and not a person when it doesn't.
There definitely needs to be a re-balancing of corporations. I don't see that happening until the system implodes upon itself. :-/ However, In the mean time what we CAN do is educate people and try to come to a BALANCED approach between zero corporations and corporations usurping power. e.g. Since politics dictates the rules, and money corrupts politics, money needs to be removed from politics. One way to do that would be to make a new rule: "Donations" MUST be split / shared amongst ALL parties so they all have a "voice" instead of companies providing kickbacks to certain politicians who want to push their agenda.
Sure they can. They have lobbyists. If enough owners and managers decided they wanted it to happen, they would throw a few million dollars more into the lobbying fund and make it so. The law may not be cheap, but it's still for sale.
Chimpanzees are not human. They don't think like humans, they don't behave like humans, they aren't physically built like humans. Of all these things, probably the most important is that they don't think like humans.
The point is not whether chimps are human; it's whether they are persons.