US - Supreme Court voids law aimed at animal cruelty videos

Missizzy

New Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
10,552
Reaction score
170
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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100420...DeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA2NvdXJ0dm9pZHNsYQ--

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.....


and

"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 *advertiser censored*, not entitled to constitutional protection...."

and

"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
 
does this mean mike vicks off the hook?

i dont get this either. but i learned not to mix politics with websleuths.
 
Of course... the Supreme Court always protects the rights of criminals. Aren't we the most lucky society?
 
Can I ask a simple question? Given this statement:

"The videos virtually disappeared once the measure became law."

I have to ask why? Child *advertiser censored* 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.
 
does this mean mike vicks off the hook?

i dont get this either. but i learned not to mix politics with websleuths.

LOL- that's a lesson I learned long ago. I stay out of the Political Pavillion- too many Tea Baggers over there.
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.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
105
Guests online
852
Total visitors
957

Forum statistics

Threads
589,928
Messages
17,927,781
Members
228,003
Latest member
Knovah
Back
Top