04-20-2010, 03:05 PM #1Registered User
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
US - Supreme Court voids law aimed at animal cruelty videos
Can someone, wiser than me, explain this, please. The law worked. By their own account, the videos virtually disappeared. Isn't that the desired effect? So, now we can look forward to more animal snuff films. I have a hard time believing that "free speech activists" were the ones cheering the loudest. I'm so darned pleased.
Court voids law aimed at animal cruelty videos
"The Supreme Court struck down a federal law Tuesday aimed at banning videos that show graphic violence against animals, saying it violates the right to free speech.
The justices, voting 8-1, threw out the criminal conviction of Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Va., who was sentenced to three years in prison for videos he made about pit bull fights.
The law was enacted in 1999 to limit Internet sales of so-called crush videos, which appeal to a certain sexual fetish by showing women crushing to death small animals with their bare feet or high-heeled shoes.
The videos virtually disappeared once the measure became law, the government argued.....
"Animal rights groups, including the Humane Society of the United States and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and 26 states joined the Obama administration in support of the law. The government sought a ruling that treated videos showing animal cruelty like child pornography, not entitled to constitutional protection...."
"But Roberts said the law could be read to allow the prosecution of the producers of films about hunting. And he scoffed at the administration's assurances that it would only apply the law to depictions of extreme cruelty...."
more at link
Last edited by Missizzy; 04-20-2010 at 03:06 PM.
04-20-2010, 03:13 PM #2Former Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
does this mean mike vicks off the hook?
i dont get this either. but i learned not to mix politics with websleuths.
04-20-2010, 03:58 PM #3
Of course... the Supreme Court always protects the rights of criminals. Aren't we the most lucky society?
“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sr.
04-20-2010, 09:19 PM #4Registered User
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
Can I ask a simple question? Given this statement:
"The videos virtually disappeared once the measure became law."
I have to ask why? Child porn is against the law and carries stiff penalties and yet it continues like kudzu vine gone crazy. Why did these awful videos disappear? Any theories?
My husband came home talking about a long discussion of the law that he'd heard discussed on NPR. It does not sound as if it's a done deal. It sounds as if we've got to narrow the scope. OK, I'll be glad to do that. I'm open to any ideas which makes this vile stuff illegal.
04-20-2010, 09:20 PM #5
This is one reason I have long felt that giving these judges lifetime tenure is a mistake. It is too easy to get off into some alternate reality, which is what I think they did with this decision. I just can't believe it was 8-1. Clearly this is not a free speech issue, it is an abuse issue. I wonder if this was sort of related to gun issues? Strange. BTW I have felt for some time that Chief Justice Roberts is one strange duck.
Last edited by Snick1946; 04-20-2010 at 09:22 PM.'Never stop fighting..never give up'
Kevin Kostner as Eliott Ness in 'The Untouchables'
By believe09 in forum Crimes in the NewsReplies: 5Last Post: 12-17-2009, 08:37 PM
By Kymistry35 in forum Recently Sentenced and BeyondReplies: 1Last Post: 03-09-2005, 01:05 AM