Appendix: Stallman on bestiality
This is the complete list of published opinions Richard Stallman has expressed in support of humans having sex with animals, or pornography thereof, that were collected for this report.
Prudish censorship attacks again in the UK, convicting someone for possessing “extreme pornography”, including images of sex with animals.
I can’t imagine a possible reason to punish people for this. The article does not report that the animals were harmed, or that they objected to the experience, or that they thought of it as sexual. The law does not consider these questions pertinent.
What is, however, clear is that prohibiting the possession of copies of some image or text — no matter what that image or text may be — threatens human rights. It creates excuses to search through people’s possessions and files. It creates ways to make people vulnerable to criminal charges without their cooperation or even their knowledge. All such laws must be repealed.
– stallman.org, 14 December 2018 “‘Extreme pornography’ conviction”
European countries are passing laws against having sex with an animal. (We are talking about sex practices that don’t physically hurt the animal.)
These laws have no rational basis. We know that some animals enjoy sex with humans. Others don’t. But really, if you smear something on your genitals that tastes good to dogs, and have a dog lick you off, it harms no one. Why should this be illegal except mindless religion?
– stallman.org, 10 October 2017 “Laws against having sex with an animal”
A national campaign seeks to make all US states prohibit sex between humans and nonhuman animals.
This campaign seems to be sheer bull-headed prudery, using the perverse assumption that sex between a human and an animal hurts the animal. That’s true for some ways of having sex, and false for others.
For instance, I’ve heard that some women get dogs to lick them off. That doesn’t hurt the dog at all. Why should it be prohibited?
When male dolphins have sex with people, that doesn’t hurt the dolphins. Quite the contrary, they like it very much. Why should it be prohibited?
I’ve also read that female gorillas sometimes express desire for sex with men. If they both like it, who is harmed? Why should this be prohibited?
The proponents of this law claim that any kind of sex between humans and other species implies that the human is a “predator” that we need to lock up. That’s clearly false, for the cases listed above. Making a prohibition based on prejudice, writing it in an overbroad way, is what prissy governments tend to do where sex is concerned. The next step is to interpret it too strongly with “zero tolerance”.
Will people convicted of having dogs lick them off be required to live at least 1000 feet from any dogs?
This law should be changed to prohibit only acts in which the animal is physically forced to have sex, or physically injured.
– stallman.org, 14 December 2016 “Campaign of bull-headed prudery”
Michigan’s senate passed a bill prohibiting oral and anal sex, in order to prohibit sex with animals.
It is wrong to criminalize sex with animals if the animals are willing and not injured. I’ve read about people that smear on their genitals something that dogs find tasty, to get the dogs to lick them. That is sex with an animal. The animal clearly chooses to do it. What part of that deserves punishment?
– stallman.org, 14 February 2016 “Oral and anal sex prohibited in Michigan”
The UK may impose a massive censorship system requiring people to identify themselves personally to view any website that is supposedly “not for children”. This would imply blocking thousands of foreign web sites.
The UK’s laws about sexual images are twisted and sick.
– stallman.org, 1 November 2016 “UK may impose massive censorship system”
Lawyer Myles Jackman defends people in the UK charged with possession of “extreme pornography”, while campaigning to repeal that law.
People are often prosecuted for copies they received unsolicited and did not know about, or tried to delete.
But even if we consider only people who possess the images intentionally, the law is unjust and dangerous. No attempt has been made to show that those people are hurting others. The only justification offered for prohibiting “extreme pornography” is that many people find it disgusting to see — and that is no justification at all.
The precise details of what this law prohibits are absurd, but the details are a side issue. Any law that prohibits possessing copies of some sort of work is dangerous to people in the same way.
– stallman.org, 09 September 2015 “Possession of ’extreme pornography’”
A man who was jailed and almost convicted of “possession of extreme pornography” (a video he had failed to delete fully) is campaigning to change that law.
This “extreme pornography” law needs to be repealed, not just reformed. Various kinds of animals, including cats, dogs, gorillas, and dolphins, sometimes enjoy and even ask for sexual activities with humans. To prohibit the act, or images of it, is sheer authoritarian prudery. Necrophilia can’t hurt the person who died (nothing can), so there is no reason to prohibit the act, let alone images of it.
However, the fundamental point is that prohibiting the possession of a copy of something — no matter what it is — is tyranny and puts everyone in danger.
– stallman.org, 29 October 2014 “‘Extreme pornography’ law”
Illustrating the evil of making it a crime to possess pornography, a man in the UK was convicted of the crime of not knowing how to delete all copies of a disgusting video sent to him by a stranger.
I don’t understand the pretext for banning pornography involving animals. If extreme animal rights activists demanded that, at least there would be some sense in it.
“Child pornography” should not be illegal either.
I wonder how long it will take for thugs to start carrying around kids they can fondle as they arrest people and beat them up. Then any photos of the brutality would be “child pornography”, and the photographer would be sent to prison.
– stallman.org, 06 August 2014 “Criminalising possession of porn”
Germany is about to prohibit sex between humans and animals, apparently based on sheer bigotry.
Many kinds of animals sometimes want sex with humans. I’ve read that female apes sometimes ask human males for sex. Male dolphins just love human females. Dogs can be convinced to lick almost anything by smearing on something that tastes good to them. A parrot once made love to me, and I hope I get another chance.
– stallman.org, 28 November 2012 “Germany to prohibit sex between humans and animals”
Andrew Holland was prosecuted in the UK for possessing “extreme pornography”, a term which appears to mean porn that judges and prosecutors consider shocking. He had received a video showing a tiger having sex with a woman, or at least apparently so.
He was found innocent because the video he received was a joke. I am glad he was not punished, but this law is nonetheless a threat to other people. If Mr Holland had had a serious video depicting a tiger having sex with a woman, he still would not deserve to go to prison.
After reading about that case, I was curious about which kinds of pornography the state is prepared to imprison people for. Here’s what the statue says to define “extreme pornography”: (…)
“A person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive), and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that the people and animals portrayed were real.” (…)
This law is not only unjust, it’s spectacularly irrational. (…)
Then there is the prohibition of realistically depicting sex with an animal. The law does not care whether the animal wanted sex. I’ve read that male dolphins try to have sex with humans, and female apes solicit sex from humans. What is wrong with giving them what they want, if that’s what turns you on, or even just to gratify them?
But this law is not concerned with protecting animals, since it does not care whether the animal really had sex, or really existed at all. It only panders to the prejudice of censors. (…)
Perhaps I am spared because this photo isn’t “disgusting”, but “disgusting” is a subjective matter; we must not imprison people merely because someone feels disgusted. I find the sight of wounds disgusting; fortunately surgeons do not. Maybe there is someone who considers it disgusting for a parrot to have sex with a human. Or for a dolphin or tiger to have sex with a human. So what? Others feel that all sex is disgusting. There are prejudiced people that want to ban all depiction of sex, and force all women to cover their faces. This law and the laws they want are the same in spirit.
– stallman.org, 19 February 2010 “Extreme Pornography Law in the UK”, updated 2013
The Clown regime is planning to prohibit the mere possession of “extreme pornography”. The excuse is that one man who liked violent pornography committed crime.
It is true that victims of real violence suffer. (Never mind that in making movies of violence, typically nobody is actually hurt.) The true oppressive spirit of this law starts to show in the prohibition of images of sex with corpses. Are we supposed to believe that corpses can suffer? Or are some cruel prudes trying to impose their prejudices by force?
The prohibition on images of sex with animals is also wrong. Some animals like sex with humans—male dophins are quite enthusiastic, and male dogs seem to like it too. Should you be imprisoned for taking pictures when a dog humps your leg? The parrot that made love to me in the Jurong Bird Park did so of his own free will. (I would never have dared to ask.) Is this photo going to be a crime? Will I be saved only because it is not obvious just what the parrot is doing to me?
The crimes committed by the occasional pervert are nothing against the crimes committed by B’liar in Iraq. So if they want to prohibit video that inspires violence, it would make more sense to go after war movies.
– stallman.org, 30 April 2008 “Possession of ’extreme pornography’”
The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, “prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia” also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally–but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.