Amazon.com Widgets
  • The dog was a working dog

    I guess it is POSSIBLE that somebody would recognize the dog as a police dog, and that would harm future cases. It seems like a better idea simply to cut the footage of the dog in it, but I'm sure somebody on the COPS TV show had a good laugh at spending all day blurring the face of a dog.

  • It does not make sense to blue a chihuahua's face on TV.

    What privacy does a chihuahua need? Why would a dog need his face blurred? They do not have the same rights and needs to privacy as a child. If a child's face doesn't get blurred when he is in a horrible situation (ex. his grandparents are overdosing in the front seat of the car), why would we, as adults, protect a dog's face before a child's? If we care more for the humanity of a dog than a child, there would be no hope for us.

  • No, it does not make sense to blur a chihuahua's face on television.

    No, it does not make sense to blur a chihuahua's face on television. There is no circumstance that I can think of that would justify protecting the identity of an animal, unless it's a parody on Funny or Die or part of a Beverly Hills Chihuahua sequel. I also think it mocks the practice of proctecting the identity of people who could be in danger if their faces were shown on TV.

  • No, it does not make sense to blur a chihuahua's face on TV.

    No, it does not make sense to blur a chihuahua's face on TV because a dog does not need to be paid for appearing on TV. A dog also does not need its privacy protected. Therefore, only people should have their faces blurred unless they sign an agreement to appear.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.