[Jeff3]

Hello everyone,

I apologize in advance, as this message will be very long.
I have recently came across a very disturbing website, in which a person is threatening to eat and kill their cat unless some celebrity reopens her Twitter account.

The website is www.**************.com, and no one really knows whether or not it's a hoax.
I was wondering about the legal issues regarding that site, and I need a professional opinion based on actual laws.

According to the website, this person does not live in the United States and their actual whereabouts are unknown. It is also not clear whether this person is a male or a female, however most news sites claim it's a girl.
The website, however, is hosted in the United States, specifically Arizona.
PETA and The Humane Society have been notified and responded, and they both said that as of now, no crime has occurred and probably won't occur in the future, and they can't do anything about it right now.

Before I join the efforts of the many people who are trying to do something about this site, I wanted to actually make some research and find out whether or not something can be legally done.

Here are some of my questions - since the website is hosted in the United States, most of my questions refer to US laws, specifically Arizona. However, I assume that due to the fact that this person still haven't committed the possible-future-crime, as of now no law is being broken, otherwise the website would have been shut down.
Before i ask my questions regarding US laws, I will ask a more important one: assuming this person is sincere, and is outside of the US, and assuming this person actually kills their cat, are there any grounds to actually open an investigation in the US, if the crime was not committed on US soil?
I assume not, but just wanted to make sure. Also, I assume that if this person is outside of the US, and killing/eating his cat is indeed legal in their country, there would be no good enough reason to shutdown the website, even if it's hosted in the US, since it just tells a story about an action that was taken, but it was not taken in the US.
- Please correct me if I'm wrong about those assumptions.

Now, lets refer to US laws. I'm really hoping something can be done about this before this deadline arrives. I'm sure that the fact the website is hosted in the US and the person isn't, makes things a bit complicated. I'm asking about US laws for several reasons - the website is hosted there, and we have no actual info on this persons real whereabouts. Also, if it is illegal there, it may be possible to shut down this website.

A. Is this person breaking any law, such as blackmail/coercion, just by threatening to go ahead with this action?

B. PETA states there are laws against eating cat/dogs in seven states only, I haven't found a list of those states though, that could be helpful.

C. Could this be considered animal cruelty? According to the website, this person suggested using a sedative during the killing process, and according to my non-extensive-research, assuming the cat gets killed in a humane way (for example by injection, or in any way that is not considered torture or inflicts physical pain), and this person indeed owns the pet, and is not selling the meat and only use it for personal consumption, then no law has been broken, even in the US. -Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.

I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether or not there's a chance of an actual investigation depending on this person's current and future actions. I'm worried because nothing has happened so far, so I don't want to waste any time contacting organizations if this situation is hopeless. I need professional and educated opinions as to whether or not any law is broken, or will be broken if this person commits the proposed action.
From what I found online, people are simply speculating, some say it's illegal for sure, others say there's nothing illegal about it. That's why I'm asking here.

I'm sure there are some questions I forgot to ask, or didn't think about asking, so feel free to add any relevant information if you believe it can be useful in this case.

Thank you for your time!

[LawResearcherMissy]

A) As you have already been told, no crime has been committed. It's not illegal to threaten to eat your pet.

I tell my dog all the time that if he doesn't shut up, I'm going to eat him with sriracha. The First Amendment allows me to threaten to eat him. It's not til I actually try that I'm going to run afoul of the law - and even then, animal cruelty laws vary by locale.

B) I am unaware of such a list.

C) Again, no crime has been committed. It's not illegal to say you're going to kill and eat your cat. There is no cruelty here, just idiotic teenaged hyperbole.

This is hardly the first website that has been put up threatening to kill a bunny/kitten/puppy in response to some celebrity flounce. It won't be the last.

Consider, perhaps, that one shouldn't necessarily take seriously everything one finds on the internet.

[Jeff3]

Thanks for the response.
That pretty much confirms what I thought, that as of now no law is being broken.

What if this person goes ahead with their threat? can the person be shut down then? or would that depend on the sort of 'proof' that will be provided regarding the actual killing?
I assume unless this person posts a video with the said action, it would be very difficult to prove whether or not a cat was actually hurt. Just saying so will probably not be enough to get any authority to act. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[aardvarc]

You're correct. Without some sort of both proof of an actual crime AND an indentifiable suspect, I'd expect little to no action to be taken. Keeping in mind too that the act would have to be a crime in the place where it was committed, regardless of where documentation of the event is being shared on the internet or otherwise being disseminated. If something is legal in country A and it is featured on a website based in country B, the owner or operator of the site is merely reporting what happened, NOT a party to the crime, in a case like this. If the crime doesn't happen in US jurisdiction, you can expect ZERO to be done about it or the reporting of it after the fact.


And, the killing and the eating may NOT be crimes in and of themselves without the element of cruelty which is typically dependent on the METHOD used.