Not exactly sure what this gentleman "produced", but I won't complain if I never see it.
However, I'm a little torn (in principle) on "obscenity" laws if all acts were between consenting parties (obviously, beastiality is inherently non-consentual).
That said, our society has bigger fish to fry.
[1] http://betabeat.com/2013/01/2-girls-1-cup-creator-sentenced-...
Consuming a filet mignon is non-consensual (as it regards the late beast, that is).
IOW, it should be at least as legal to fuck a cow as to eat one. After all, in the former case, the cow gets to keep chewing its cud.
Does it apply to domestic animals? Does the argument extend to animal torture? If not, then why? Which animal cruelty laws should we strip from the books?
Note to self : when debating the legal and moral ramifications beastiality on HN at 2 in the morning, go to bed.
How is bestiality more cruel to an animal than how some pigs are raised in factory farms, or veal, or the frequent abuse of chickens that we've turned a blind eye to? What about animal testing in laboratories?
That we don't seem to care about enforcing those laws is one thing but simply saying "cruelty is illegal and rape is cruelty" doesn't sound inherently incompatible with eating meat.
Humans can empathize with things which aren't humans, and with animals is relatively easy to empathize with pain. The laws are a function of, among other things, our level of empathy with a species and its use for other means. Dogs and cats, beloved by many, take a very special place in our laws, while tasty chickens are less so. Lowly wheat is neutral on the empathy scale, while most are decidedly not fond of roaches.
The balance of concerns changes over time. Should some day we be able to synthesize meat directly ("Panda meat while you wait!" "Put some tiger in your tummy today!"), then I predict there will be a larger call for "more ethical" treatment of animals currently raised for food.
The arguments against bestiality vary. Some just think it's squicky, which is likely an aspect of empathy. Others think that in human cultures, sex must be consensual (not rape), by people who can make an informed decision (not children, not unconscious), and without the taint of a power imbalance (boss/employee, teacher/student). Though even then, an adult child having sex with a parent is also squicky by many despite passing these rules.
Empathy with animals extends that view to animals, and it's hard to tell if an animal consents, and is not doing so from power imbalance.
I am not an ethicist, but I think this gives an outline of the factors by which we tend to say that sex with delicious pigs is a no-no while sex with pretty flowers is odd, but not specifically regulated.
They're taking the idea of "a nation of animal lovers" rather too literally.