S.B. 72 Obscene Animal Abuse Material Amendments: transcript

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much. And it's, it's always nice to know that we're human and sometimes we make mistakes, right? Um, well, uh, committee, I bring a bill to you that has nothing to do with cannabis, and I'm not sure how I end up with some of these things. It has been more on the more interesting topics that I've ever looked into. Um, you know, oftentimes we'll have people approach us and, and ask us, you know, if we'll look into something, and this is what happened. I had some law enforcement people in Southern Utah reach out to me and say, you know, there really is an issue with this animal pornography. And I said, you gotta be kidding me. Uh, but I never just automatically opened up a bill file or something. I, I, and I, I reached out to Ledge Research, and they did some excellent, uh, research for us and found that, yeah, there is, there is definitely an issue, but it's really intriguing. Uh, we did have the, the fact in code, it was not as clear as it should have been about distributing and producing animal pornography, bestiality. Uh, and there's another issue called animal crushing Come. And then there, the, another interesting fact is the US Supreme Court had ruled that it is legal to possess this, informa this stuff, but it's, but they are not clear on distributing and producing. So the build is fairly simple in that perspective. It does bring clarity to our code that it is not legal to produce or distribute animal pornography or bestiality, and then it does add animal crushing. And I, um, I do have handouts that hopefully have been passed out. I, I did not provide pictures. Thank you. Um, but it's interesting that people, what people will do, apparently people do this animal crushing, literally, you know, crushing animals in various ways. I'm not gonna describe anything. And some of it is for sexual gratification. Um, it's hard for me to fathom, but, uh, I, you know, it does, apparently it is an issue. And like I say, law enforcement confirmed that our, our research has confirmed that. So the bill does those things. It brings together, uh, the clarity to the things that were in code and puts them in a new definition. And it adds animal crushing. There was, if you look on the back, you know, it talks about the penalties. Those penalties are not new, and they're not enhanced. They just, they've been existing. So those, those penalties were not, were not enhancing penalties, or the only thing that we would be doing is adding animal crushing to that penalty structure. Uh, in the, in the Senate committee, when we presented, there was an individual that came, uh, and testified about the fact that they felt like that this could, uh, ban certain books in schools or, or in libraries, not schools, but in libraries. I'm not gonna go there, but, uh, I think, if I remember right, the individual used the term, uh, the book, Lord of the Flies. Um, the drafting attorney pointed to out to me after the committee hearing that if you look on lines, uh, 360 4 through 3 6 73, it talks about specifically in 72 and 73 is taken as a whole. The depiction of animal crushing or sexual conduct with an animal does not have serious literary, literary, artistic, political, or scientific values. So, uh, that would not bring that into the fold. So we, we really are looking only those things that are, that are obscene and, uh, fall into that category. So, Mr. Chair, with that, I'm hoping for questions.

Yeah. Thank you, Senator. Uh, the only question I had was when it talks about animal crushing, talks about the ways you intentionally do that. So would that, if you had a, a kid out with his BB gun and he's shooting birds and killing a, a, a black bird or starling or something, some bird, is that also included in there, in that bill?

No. It, it does have to be used for nefarious purposes. And, you know, I mean, all of us as kids, you know, those have at least grew up in rural areas. We've done exactly what you're talking about. Um, I don't know, you know, if they were to, we are talking about a crushing of a live animal, not, you know, not one that you've already taken care of with your BB gun, but,

Okay. Thank you. Yeah, just wanted to make sure I wasn't breaking the law when I was a kid, So maybe the statute of limitations are gone on that. Okay. Yeah, yeah, for sure. Thanks, Representative Snider.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And I, I did have a question. This is a tough subject. Um, on line 360 7, it talks about applying contemporary community standards. Um, and I understand what you're trying to get here. I'm just wondering if that means the standard shifts sort of be, as the, the public's perception shifts through time, or if we're, I just don't know what that means in terms of actually what we're talking about here. So if, if there's moral decline in this citizenry, do the, is there less of a penalty here? Do you get, do you get what I'm trying to get at Senator?

Yeah, Mr. Chair, if I could. Yeah, I do actually. I understand. You know, and if you think about throughout code, we often have a depiction in code as, as a normal person would interpret. Okay. It kind of falls into that category. Okay. So I, I guess it could change with time. I'm not an expert there, but it is, the way I understand it kind of falls into that kind of same category. We have pervasive throughout the code that a, a normal person would perceive. Okay.

Yeah. Okay. I didn't know if that was standard practice or not. So I'm, thank goodness I'm not an attorney. There's enough in the world. Thank you.

Thanks. Uh, sort of an interesting subject. Um, but I've been in other committee meetings where they've talked about AI created porn and computer generated porn, and, uh, that type of stuff. Has that been thought about or included in this area as well?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, specifically, no, but it fall and other than how it falls under the definition of, uh, pornography and obscene material. And so if, if it's doesn't, I'm not, it doesn't really matter, however, how it's generated, if it falls under those categories, then it would be considered.

Okay. Thanks. Anything else, representative?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm, I'm glad to see, you know, that it says that, um, uh, practices that are, uh, normal to animal husbandry are not in included in this. 'cause, uh, you know, uh, recently there's been a discovery, well, it's probably been known for quite a while, but it hasn't been very well advertised that there's a, uh, procedure called the, I, I'm not sure I'm pronouncing it properly, called the Madigan, uh, uh, squeeze. And, uh, when sometimes, uh, calves or, or colts folds or, uh, are born and they're pretty lethargic. We call 'em dummy dummies or whatever, poor little guys. And, uh, it's been discovered that, uh, if you can, uh, you know, take a, a soft rope and, and wrap 'em in it and, and squeeze it, so it kind of simulates the, the pressure they get as they go through the birth canal, that it actually will stimulate them. And, uh, and, uh, they get going. It's amazing how quickly they recover and how slow they are if they don't have that. And sometime I would think somebody might think that was being, uh, abusive to a critter, but in fact, it's helping us. So I'm glad that, that, uh, this also includes that there's, you know, things that are, that we do sometimes are misinterpreted. So, uh, I appreciate that, uh, that part of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, uh, I guess two thoughts about this. Senator would, you mentioned, Lord of the Flies, and I had been thinking about, you know, photographic kind of generation of this pornographic stuff. Are you, this would cover even just a purely written thing that didn't involve an animal in, in other words, I guess to me, there's two things going on with the bill. One is you want to protect animals, and the other one is you want to not have this kind of material getting created. So, just to clarify, this would cover the, just a purely fictional writing a a person sitting down and writing words.

Yes. If I could, Mr. Chair. Yes. And like I say, referring back to those lines that, uh, talking about literary, you know, or it, it's, here again, it's that standard that, and realize that it's hard to even fathom. But we're talking about, um, sexual depictions between, uh, an animal and a human. But the writing, if it comes under the category, if it does come under this category of literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, then no, it would be excluded.

So, yes, But Okay. But as a starting matter, this could theoretically just cover the creation of fiction and with words.

Yeah. You know, we're, we're specifically looking at the obscene material that, uh, is, is purposely done for, you know, sexual gratification. And, and not for any, does not have any literary purpose.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you,

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Senator, if you could help me out with animal crushing, starting on lines three 12. I do not see within the, the definition of animal crushing the idea that it has to be of a, of a sexual nature. Am I correct? It's just means the actual conduct in which a living non-human mammal is intentionally crushed, burned, drowned, suffocated, impaled, or otherwise subjected to serious bodily injury. But there's no implication that it has to be for a, a sexual purpose. Is that right?

That's true. And, and, and maybe I didn't make clear in my testimony, often it's done for sexual gratification, but it's not specifically said there.

Right. So I'm, I'm struggling a little bit because 360 4 obscene animal abuse material taken as a whole, the depiction of animal crushing with an animal does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. But you think of books like of mice and Men in which, you know, rabbits are, are killed. Yeah. That might be the, that might be the book that was referenced in the committee, not Lord of, uh, Yeah. So there's, there's no sexual nature in that book, but under that definition of sexual or of animal crushing, that book would then fall into the category of obscene animal abuse material. Is that not right?

No, because, uh, you have in lines 3 72 and 3 73, that would be excluded Taken as a whole depiction.

But as I read, I apologize, Mr. Chair, if I could just follow up as I read those lines, 3 72 and 3 73, um, taken as a whole, the depiction of animal crushing with an animal does not have serious literary value in that book. It does. And in that book, it's a, it's a, uh, an important part of the, of the story when, when those rabbits are crushed, and then, um, it, it, it, it moves the plot forward without it being of a, of a sexual nature. Um, as I'm reading these lines, and I could be wrong, but it would seem to me that that would cause of mis and men to fall into the category of obscene animal abuse material. Am I incorrect?

If I could respond, Mr. Chair. Uh, I'm not the attorney here. Mm-hmm. But I did phone a friend on this who was the drafting attorney, and he said, no, that would, that that particular book would not, it would be excluded because of those lines.

Okay. Alright. Thank you.

Motion to approve with a favorable recommendation, SB 72

I was just pushing the button to do, make the motion

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just ask Senator, as, as you, you go forward with this, that, just those two lines I keep coming back to, taken as a whole, the depiction of animal crushing does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. I, I agree that, you know, with, with especially the sexual conduct, absolutely. But the animal crushing itself, you know, depictions within literature or film of animals being injured, um, can have literary, artistic, or, you know, value. So I would just ask that, you know, perhaps another conversation with the drafting attorney, just looking at those lines in particular, because I do believe that it puts certain books and films that I've read, um, into this category of obscene animal abuse material. And, and that, um, that is concerning to me.

Yeah, I appreciate their consideration on that. And absolutely, uh, representative Arthur, in fact, uh, let's get together with our drafting attorney and see if there's amendment you might be wanting to propose, if not the house sponsor.

To add I to Representative Arthur, I think that's intended absolutely. To protect the very thing you're concerned about. There's a sort of negative in there that's an exception. So if there is literary value, and, and, uh, I think I recall that book and know what you're talking about, and it was one anyway that would, that, that would not fall under the purview of this statute. 'cause it's got that carve out for, you know, the depiction of it, if it does have literary value, literary and, or anyway, I I won't belabor it. I'm sorry. Uh, that will, from now on, I'll waive.

No, thank you very much. Okay, I'll,

Thank you Mr. Chair Committee. Um, I do have a handout for this. If it's okay, I'll have Up hand up Your staff. Why don't you bring up to staff? I was just, that was a bad joke. With your permission, of course. We'll let Taylor handle it. Thank you. Well, I have to tell you, this is, uh, not a space that I'm, you know, used to working in or comfortable even working in. Even coming to judiciary is not a place that I've been very often. So, lemme just tell you, this was, this issue was brought to me by some law enforcement officers in, in southern Utah. And unfortunately, it really is a real problem. As we did some research, uh, as we researched the issues we found there was, it was likely, um, what production and distribution of the, of the material was prohibited under existing law, but it was spread out, and it was apparently, and it apparently is not clear enough. So s SB 72 is meant to do that. We also found that US Supreme Court had ruled that it was not prohibited to possess the material of, uh, animal pornography. And, which is interesting, I guess for me at least, maybe those are in the legal profession, understand that better. It re but it creates kind of a delicate spot. Uh, the bill clarifies that it's prohibited to produce or distribute this type of material. The bill is trying to accomplish two main things. It creates a standalone sections and subsection and code for obscene animal abuse materials to make it clear that these types of material that are obscene and depict sexual conduct between humans and animals can be prosecuted under current law. This is helpful to law enforcement. It does allow them to have clarity. It includes obscene animal abuse, material depiction of non-sexual acts committed against animals that otherwise can meet the obscenity test, thus potentially increasing the material that could potentially fall under current and newly created statutes dealing with obscenity and animals. This would somewhat mirror, um, 18 US, code 48 and animal crushing. And that, uh, the, this is where, this is one new component to it. It does have a definition of animal crushing, but it still has to meet the definition of the obscenity, uh, statute. It does not increase enhanced penalties, uh, except adding, uh, animal crushing to the prohibitions under current statutes. Uh, the obscenity definition, uh, it, it is, it is important to note that the, the new component, the animal crushing has met has to meet the obscenity definition, which mirrors federal and state law. So, with that, uh, Mr. Chair, I am open to your questions.

Thank you, Dan Strong for sentencing commission. CCJJ reviewed this bill and, uh, would to support it. Um, just wanted to thanks Senator Vickers for working, uh, with us during the interim to tackle this issue. And I kind of wanted to, um, I think Senator Vickers covered this well, but just re kind of reassure everybody. The bill sort of may look at first glance, like it's creating a whole bunch of new penalties and jail, mandatory jail sentences, et cetera. What's really doing is clarifying, for the most part, existing law and make and resolving an ambiguity about whether some of these things might have counted, although they likely would have under the prior statute. And then mirroring the penalties that existed in the obscenity or distribution of photographic material statute. Um, and then it also addresses the issue of, of animal crushing videos in a way that, that seems like it will pass constitutional muster. So for those reasons, we support it. Thank you.

Yes. I'm sorry. Senator Musselman. Um, So I, I, I guess I, if can, can you just bring a little clarity to this? This is clearly animal crushing gross, weird, strange. But there is a test. How does that, how does that meet the, I I don't, I'm not sure what the test is called. Constitutional test if it meets sub acidity, but it doesn't seem to be sexual in nature. Maybe that is, I don't, maybe, what am I missing here?

This? Thank you, Senator. I mean, this is an issue that we spent a all time discussing on the commission, so I had a chance to dive into it and discuss with, um, drafting attorney, et cetera, and looked at the federal stuff. Um, these are bizarre corners of the internet. I think that we would be going down to, to find the videos that meet this definition. But in order to meet the elements and, and kind of pass that constitutional test, it would have to depict the, the animal crushing, you know, the torture, death, et cetera that's mentioned, and also appeal to the period interest in sex, essentially have no artistic value and be patently offensive to society that those, I don't have those, I'm not reading from the thing, but that's essentially the, the definition. So it wouldn't be enough just to show an animal that, you know, wouldn't Be enough just to show an animal being crushed. It'd have to be other aspects of the video. It'd have to be, yeah, somewhat, at least somewhat sexualized. And I think some of these videos are that unfortunately. Um, but, you know, we talked about other examples, like a, a cow being hit by a train or something that someone might share out of horror, but that's not a, that would not meet the definition laid out here.

Uh, Mr. Chair too. If we, the drafting attorney, shadow Larson, who did a great deal of research on this, bill is here too. If, if you need further clarification on that, he could come forward and discuss that as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Carl Holland. I am the Executive Director of Statewide Association of Prosecutors. Uh, we didn't approach the sponsor with this bill, but we're glad that he took this up. This is unfortunately something that is a growing trend on the internet. Uh, these videos are disturbing. Uh, unfortunately, as many of you know, I've seen a lot of horrible things on the bizarre corners of the internet. Um, and I did help in prosecuting an animal crushing case in federal court. Um, and so it's good that we're taking those steps in this right direction here in Utah to protect people from this. Uh, and, uh, we'd urge your support on this bill. Thank you.

Hi there. Um, good afternoon. My name is Daniel Neville Raven, and I'm with, uh, I'm a parent and with Utah Library Association. And I'm a little concerned about this bill as it has impacts on, uh, school library collections and sensitive materials there. Um, I share the goal of protecting children and library workers and legislators both want what's best for our kids as a parent, I don't want my kids being exposed to the materials referenced in this bill, but I'm concerned that this legislation, as currently written, would unintentionally remove access to books, uh, with real literary merit. Classic American literature, like of mice and men, or the Call of the Wild, could be affected because of the definitions being applied. Don't clearly distinguish between obscene material and serious literature to our knowledge. Books that involve actual animal crushing for sexual gratification are not even being selected in Utah schools, which suggest this concern may be misplaced. I urge you to vote no on this amendment so that, uh, literary, artistic, political, and scientific value is explicitly protected and ensures that our school libraries remain places of learning and thoughtful exploration. Thank you.

I recommend that Senate Bill 72 pass with a favorable recommendation to the full body of the Senate.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And in summation, uh, number one, I, I think it's unfortunate we even have to talk about this stuff. And, and, but also in, maybe in light of the, the one public comment, I'd like to clarify that if we're talking about, I've seen pornography between handles and humans, that's, that's already in statute, we're bringing that stuff together and bringing clarity and transparency to it. The piece about, uh, so if, if those types of things are in, in libraries somewhere, they probably shouldn't be. And because they meet those, those, that classification of obscenity. And on as far as the, the, you know, the animal crushing type thing, we're sim most of the time you're looking at videos and those types of things on the internet. Uh, if they're there, again, if they rise to the level of obscenity, they probably shouldn't be in the library either. Uh, but that is not my, I don't have the ability or the expertise to determine that there are those that could, and I would hope that those that are, are managing those facilities would keep that in mind. So, I, I appreciate your support on the bill. Thank you.

Um, I'm kinda hoping that this adds a little more excitement to the afternoon than some of your other things we've talked about. I gotta tell you, I, um, sometimes you get asked to look into things that is outside your wheelhouse. This is outside my wheelhouse, but I did have some law enforcement people from Southern Utah come to me and said, this is a real thing. We're having trouble with animal pornography, animal and human pornography. And I said, and we got really? And so we, I contacted Ledge Research, we did a bunch of research and turns out, yeah, there is some serious issues. Here's, here's what's going on. Animal. You can call it bestiality, whatever you want. Animal human pornography. Um, the US Supreme Court ruled that it is legal to possess, but in our statutes, uh, you, it is not legal to distribute or produce, but it's, unfortunately it is not clear. And it's been, they're separated and in different definitions. So this bill is going to allow us to bring those back together and they're the same definition. And then I'll add one, add another additional item called animal crushing. And I didn't know that was a thing either, but, so, um, that's sim Essentially what the bill does is bringing those two definitions together, it creates a new definition for animal crushing. It does have some, some penalties, but the penalties are already currently in existence. So they're not, the only thing that would be added to that would be the one be a, a penalty for animal crushing. But it, it's been been such an interesting topic to research. And, you know, it is, my first thought was, do we really have to talk about this? Do we really have to deal with this? And it turns out yes. And it, it probably is the best thing to do. Now in committee, there was a person that came and testified and was concerned about how, how it could prevent certain books from being in, uh, in a library. I think the one, if I remember right, the one that the individual mentioned was Lord of the Flies. I found out later actually that in the bill it specifically says in lines 360 7 to 3 73 that literally an artistic are not included. So that would not be the case. So if, if by chance you've heard anything along those lines, that would not be the case with the bill. Um, and I think that pretty well outlines what the bill does. And so I'm open to any questions.

Well, I didn't get the excitement I was hoping for it Did I? I Was waiting to, but anyway, AWAI summation and move that Senate Bill 72 be read a third time.

and distribute, you probably shouldn't vote for this. If you think it's okay to, uh, do animal crushing and sometimes for sexual arousal, uh, you probably shouldn't vote for this. If you think that we should clarify that bestiality and animal pornography are, it is illegal to produce and distribute, then you would want to vote. Aye. And if you're also, uh, feel like it is, uh, it's inappropriate to, to go do, allow animal crushing, uh, then you should be an aye. And with that, I'm open for any, any questions. Thank you for the presentation.

Thank you Mr. President ProAm. I would waive summation and move the Senate Bill 72 pass.

Senator Vickers. Baldy Aye. Lewin Brammer Aye. Bus? Aye. Comore. Escamilla Fillmore Aye. Grover Harper Aye. Kinins Aye. Ipson Aye. Johnson Aye. Juab Aye. McKay? Aye. Mikel Aye. Milner a Mussman Owens Aye. Pitcher Thumb Rebi sandal Aye. Stevenson Aye. Stratton? Yes. Vickers. Weiler Aye. Wilson. Aye.

Senator Wilson, Uh, Mr. President Prote, uh, uh, motion to circle, um, this is the law that I've, uh, deemed a Desiree Turner law and her family would like to be here this afternoon to see it pass. So I'd like to motion to circle All in. Do you wanna move this to time certain? Is that what

Your request? No, I, I'll just encircle they'll just be in the gallery. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that option. And they just couldn't get here this morning. They'll be here this afternoon. So thank

Thank you. So this is a joint resolution. So just as a heads up to everyone, I probably will be calling the Senate at the end of, uh, before I call the question on it, uh,

matter. Meeting clerk Senate bill 72 Obscene animal abuse material amendments by Senator Vickers. This bill was heard of Natural Resources, agriculture and Environment with vote 10 0 4.

Thank you Mr. Speaker ProAm. Motion. Motion to adopt. First substitute. The motion is to adopt. First substitute. That's in order. We'd like to speak to it. Yeah. We're pulling out one section of code that was unnecessary because of how all of the cross-references work and we just thought it was a better way to do it.

Thank you Mr. Speaker ProAm. So this bill adds animal crushing to the definition of obscene. Um, I, in order to keep things appropriate, I don't want to go into too much detail, but animal crushing materials are typically found in conjunction with CS A they involve regularly. So I'm told by law enforcement, stilettos and baby animals and the death of said animals. Um, for pleasure purposes. With that Mr. Speaker, I really don't want to answer any questions, but I will try.

I'm gonna waive. Thank you all.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Pro Tem. Um, so this bill there deals again with, uh, non-competes this time in the veterinary space. There are three main pieces to this bill involving non-competes, non-disclosures and non-solicitation. The bill would prohibit veterinarian non-competes of any type, not just employee employer, unless the veterinarian has at least a 5% ownership stake in the, in the entity. Um, non-disclosure clauses in involving a veteran veterinarian. If the non-disclosure prohibits the veterinarian from discussing their experience working for a particular person and non-solicitation agreements involving a veterinarian in all three cases only these agreements entered into after May 6th, 2026 would be affected. So we're not going backwards. Um, this supports continuative care for your little fur babies. Um, it strengthens workforce flexibility at a time when when we are, we have less veterinarian workforce. Um, and it aligns with modern employment standards and fairness. Um, as with the other non-compete legislation we've heard these clauses are antithetical to a free market system in a right to work state and I would appreciate your vote.

Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro Tam. I just rise in support of this. I was wondering if this was gonna do harm or good, and I actually talked to my brother who's a veterinarian

We'd like to speak to it. Yeah. We're pulling out one section of code that was unnecessary because of how all of the cross-references work and we just thought it was a better way to do it.

Thank you Mr. Speaker ProAm. So this bill adds animal crushing to the definition of obscene. Um, I, in order to keep things appropriate, I don't want to go into too much detail, but animal crushing materials are typically found in conjunction with CS A they involve regularly. So I'm told by law enforcement, stilettos and baby animals and the death of said animals. Um, for pleasure purposes. With that Mr. Speaker, I really don't want to answer any questions, but I will try.

I'm gonna waive. Thank you all.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Pro Tem. Um, so this bill there deals again with, uh, non-competes this time in the veterinary space. There are three main pieces to this bill involving non-competes, non-disclosures and non-solicitation. The bill would prohibit veterinarian non-competes of any type, not just employee employer, unless the veterinarian has at least a 5% ownership stake in the, in the entity. Um, non-disclosure clauses in involving a veteran veterinarian. If the non-disclosure prohibits the veterinarian from discussing their experience working for a particular person and non-solicitation agreements involving a veterinarian in all three cases only these agreements entered into after May 6th, 2026 would be affected. So we're not going backwards. Um, this supports continuative care for your little fur babies. Um, it strengthens workforce flexibility at a time when when we are, we have less veterinarian workforce. Um, and it aligns with modern employment standards and fairness. Um, as with the other non-compete legislation we've heard these clauses are antithetical to a free market system in a right to work state and I would appreciate your vote.

Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro Tam. I just rise in support of this. I was wondering if this was gonna do harm or good, and I actually talked to my brother who's a veterinarian

Senator Vickers Baldry Aye. Lein Brammer bus comore as Camilla Aye. Fillmore Roper Harper Hankins Ipson Johnson Quan McKay Mikel Milner Musselman Owens pitcher Aye. Plum Rebe Sandal Stevenson Stratton pickers. Aye. Weiler Wilson Winterton, president Adams Thus aye