Let me ask you a question. Are you saying that not one person's mind was changed by seeing pictures of that giraffe? That not one American voter changed their mind about lion hunting when they read about and saw pictures of Cecil? These are the things that matter to those who make the laws - did you notice just how fast your President changed his mind about elephant imports after the public outcry? Do you have any idea how easy it is for an animal rights organization to "influence" an African politician?
I don't think anyone here is saying that "not one" person has been influenced by "bad" pictures, or even by "good" pictures with lies and misinformation attached to them. We definitely need to change how we react, and combat the anti emotional lies with fact and reason. No argument. Zero. In my opinion however; this should not lead to us giving up right of free speech, which this does (we will have to disagree here). Why else would a government take away the right to discuss a LEGAL activity if not taking away free speech?
Interestingly enough, Danene seems to agree with me as she freely admits this may not be legal, although I suppose her concern could be for any of a number of other legal reasons.
If you think this is a violation of your rights, I've already addressed that in another post. Suffice to say it isn't.
Where is the line drawn? We all know that anti Vegans hate all meat. Should all pictures of food containing meat be outlawed from social media? Would that stop them?
How about restaurant windows? Perhaps they should be made illegal in all restaraunts that serve meat to prevent the below? Seems like a simple and straight forward solution....
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/apr/12/ethical-eating-vegan-protest-meat-Canada
Would a government not be restricting rights if a driving permit had a condition that you couldn't say things the government found to be detrimental in order to get the permit? You agreed to the driving permit conditions after all, just as with a hunting permit.
Crazy examples, perhaps, and perhaps not. It simply bothers me when government restricts rights in order to quell protest and shape public opinion, and in my opinion, that's exactly what this is. There are always exceptions of course, such as the need for national security or military needs, but this doesn't seem to fall under anything I believe is an exception.
Again, I believe this to be a misguided effort to do the right thing, nothing more and nothing less. And it's a Namibian issue. No doubt. Time will tell on this one and we will see if it even gets truly implemented, or if it's changed and stopped.
Changing subject slightly.... Since this is and has been such a big deal to NAPHA, per Danene, for at least the last year and they are and have been so strongly against hunter trophy photos I wonder why they didn't make it against NAPHA rules long ago for posting of photos to be against the rules of hunting with any NAPHA member? Hmmm.....
![E Hmmm :E Hmmm: :E Hmmm:](/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.original/e-hmmm.gif)