This man was captured on video pouring beer down the mouth of a common carp.
The rise in social media videos portraying animal cruelty has sparked discussions about the motivations behind such acts and the accountability of both abusers and those who film and share these heinous acts.
The National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA) said since the rise of social media platforms, it has seen an alarming increase in videos depicting animal cruelty.
This has resulted in inspectors now dedicating substantial time and resources to tracking and investigating these videos’ origins.
On Wednesday, the NSPCA arrested a man, who referred to himself as the “King of Crocodile”, for animal cruelty after a video posted on a social media platform showed him torturing a Nile crocodile.
Earlier this month, videos of a Chacma baboon named Raygun being brutally killed in Delmas, Mpumalanga, by pupils of Botleng Secondary School went viral on TikTok.
The school management refused to identify those responsible, resulting in the NSPCA offering a R20 000 reward for information.
Last month, the NSPCA laid criminal charges against a man for pouring alcohol down the mouth of a common carp in a video that went viral online. The man admitted to the act and stated that his motivation was “fun”.
The NSPCA’s Wildlife Protection Unit (WPU) is currently investigating an incident where a zebra is seen on video being brutally hacked to death with an axe while trapped and entangled in wire fencing.
Jacques Peacock, spokesperson for the NSPCA, stated that anyone found guilty of an offence under Section 2 of the Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962 (APA) could face a fine or imprisonment for animal cruelty.
“Currently, these are set at a maximum fine of R40 000 or 12 months’ imprisonment, and this can be applied per charge,” he said, adding that the accused would have a criminal record.
Peacock explained further that Section 3 of the APA also allows the court to order that an accused person be deprived of ownership of the animal that was subjected to cruelty. The court may also declare the person unfit to own or be in charge of any animal for a specified period.
In terms of those who film and publish acts of animal cruelty, he said they, too, may be held liable.
“In terms of Section 2(1)(q) and (r), by assisting in the commission or omission of any of the acts in the section, or permitting those actions to take place; or by wantonly or unreasonably or negligently doing or omitting to do any act or causing or procuring the commission or omission of any act, cases unnecessary suffering to any animal i.e., they failed to intervene and, therefore, allowed the act to continue,” said Peacock.
Unathi Dlamini, an associate from Shepstone Wylie Attorneys, said social media users need to remember that it is important to engage with social media responsibly, as a digital footprint cannot be easily erased.
“With irresponsible and harmful posting come serious consequences, not just against one’s social media accounts, but reputation overall,” she said.
According to Dlamini, the world has become much smaller as a result of social media.
“Now, a social media user in South Africa can interact with a social media user from the United States of America. With the ‘virtual world’ becoming smaller than what it used to be, going viral on social media takes a mere matter of hours,” she said.
Becoming a viral internet sensation not only brings attention through views, said Dlamini, but it can also generate income for some social media users, depending on the platforms and users that they interact with.
“With the virtual world being as small as it is now, it is not that difficult for social media users to find a community with like-minded individuals who engage in similar content. This brings with it a guarantee that even videos that depict animal cruelty will always have a viewing market,” she said.
Dlamini said while social media platforms have their respective regulations and standards for publishing content, with the sheer number of users engaging and posting on such platforms daily, it is not possible to screen all of the content.
“On a practical level, the regulations and standards kick in once another user reports that particular content as harmful. Once it is reported, this is when the user and the content would be screened, and an assessment would be made by the social media platform as to whether the content is in breach of the standards,” she advised.
What must be kept in mind, according to Dlamini, is that reporting the content does not completely remove it from the social media platform. “During the time that the video is uploaded, other users may have saved the content and reposted, which then facilitates the trending of that content.”
Dlamini stated that going viral for problematic reasons and/or content is never the stamp that a responsible social media user wants to imprint on the internet.
“In addition to this, acts of animal cruelty are a criminal offence, and organisations such as the NSPCA are empowered to take action against those perpetrators,” she said.
karen.singh@inl.co.za
Related Topics: