Have you heard about this?[SIZE=+2][/SIZE]
I didn't read the arguments. My first kneejerk reaction was that animal cruelty was already illegal, so how could a video of it possibly be legal? Then I thought about how prostitution is illegal in most of the US, but it's perfectly okay to pay a person to have sex so long as you publish the video & sell it for profit. :wtf:
An argument on my local talk radio brought up hunting videos. Many people think hunting is cruel, and videos such as the ones on cable that teach hunting, field dressing, and wildlife conservation might get caught up in the net if the Supreme Court had decided differently.
Frankly I'm stumped. Isn't cruelty cruelty? Wouldn't making a video of animal cruelty to sell for profit be aiding the commission of a crime? (yeh, there's a word for it but it escapes me at the mo.)
Any time we consider limiting a freedom we have to consider possible unintended consequences. What are the consequences of this decision? What if they had decided differently?
Supreme Court says fetish videos depicting animal cruelty deserve free speech protections
12:00 AM CDT on Wednesday, April 21, 2010
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that even videos that depict wanton animal cruelty deserve free-speech protections under the First Amendment.
In an 8-1 decision that united the court's liberal and conservative wings, the justices struck down a law that was enacted in response to so-called crush videos, supposedly designed to satisfy bizarre sexual cravings. The court said the law, however well-intentioned, went too far.
"Maybe there are some categories of speech that have been historically unprotected," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, "but if so, there is no evidence that depictions of animal cruelty is among them."
The ruling means that animal cruelty won't be added to obscenity, fraud and the handful of other categories of constitutionally unprotected speech.
"The majority opinion shows that the current court, although frequently described as politically conservative, continues to take free-speech protections seriously," said lawyer Andy Tauber, who filed an amicus brief in the case.
Roberts, quoting in part from a congressional report, explained that crush videos often show women "slowly crushing animals to death 'with their bare feet or while wearing high-heeled shoes,' sometimes while 'talking to the animals in a kind of dominatrix patter' over 'the cries and squeals of the animals.' "
Solicitor General Elena Kagan had asked the justices to balance the value of the speech against its societal cost. But Roberts rejected that notion as "startling and dangerous."
"The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits," he wrote.
Justice Samuel Alito was the sole dissenter.
Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the U.S., said Congress should pass a narrower law quickly "to make sure the First Amendment is not used as a shield for those committing barbaric acts of cruelty and then peddling their videos on the Internet."
McClatchy Newspapers
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...-scotus_21nat.ART.State.Edition1.4cdabef.html12:00 AM CDT on Wednesday, April 21, 2010
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that even videos that depict wanton animal cruelty deserve free-speech protections under the First Amendment.
In an 8-1 decision that united the court's liberal and conservative wings, the justices struck down a law that was enacted in response to so-called crush videos, supposedly designed to satisfy bizarre sexual cravings. The court said the law, however well-intentioned, went too far.
"Maybe there are some categories of speech that have been historically unprotected," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, "but if so, there is no evidence that depictions of animal cruelty is among them."
The ruling means that animal cruelty won't be added to obscenity, fraud and the handful of other categories of constitutionally unprotected speech.
"The majority opinion shows that the current court, although frequently described as politically conservative, continues to take free-speech protections seriously," said lawyer Andy Tauber, who filed an amicus brief in the case.
Roberts, quoting in part from a congressional report, explained that crush videos often show women "slowly crushing animals to death 'with their bare feet or while wearing high-heeled shoes,' sometimes while 'talking to the animals in a kind of dominatrix patter' over 'the cries and squeals of the animals.' "
Solicitor General Elena Kagan had asked the justices to balance the value of the speech against its societal cost. But Roberts rejected that notion as "startling and dangerous."
"The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits," he wrote.
Justice Samuel Alito was the sole dissenter.
Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the U.S., said Congress should pass a narrower law quickly "to make sure the First Amendment is not used as a shield for those committing barbaric acts of cruelty and then peddling their videos on the Internet."
McClatchy Newspapers
I didn't read the arguments. My first kneejerk reaction was that animal cruelty was already illegal, so how could a video of it possibly be legal? Then I thought about how prostitution is illegal in most of the US, but it's perfectly okay to pay a person to have sex so long as you publish the video & sell it for profit. :wtf:
An argument on my local talk radio brought up hunting videos. Many people think hunting is cruel, and videos such as the ones on cable that teach hunting, field dressing, and wildlife conservation might get caught up in the net if the Supreme Court had decided differently.
Frankly I'm stumped. Isn't cruelty cruelty? Wouldn't making a video of animal cruelty to sell for profit be aiding the commission of a crime? (yeh, there's a word for it but it escapes me at the mo.)
Any time we consider limiting a freedom we have to consider possible unintended consequences. What are the consequences of this decision? What if they had decided differently?
