Supreme Court rejects law banning animal-cruelty videos

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By Michael Doyle | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that even videos depicting 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, justices struck down a law enacted in response to so-called "crush videos" supposedly designed to satisfy certain 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 court's ruling overturns the conviction of Robert J. Stevens, whose Web site, "Dogs of Velvet and Steel," offered videos showing dogfights as well as videos showing pit bulls mauling pigs.

Stevens had been convicted under a law, originally authored by Republican U.S. Rep. Elton Gallegly of California, incited by reports of crush videos.

"Crush videos often depict 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,' " Roberts explained, quoting in part from a congressional report.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchy...l#ixzz0lfdI8Dwl

[Peikko 1,575]

By Michael Doyle | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that even videos depicting 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, justices struck down a law enacted in response to so-called "crush videos" supposedly designed to satisfy certain 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 court's ruling overturns the conviction of Robert J. Stevens, whose Web site, "Dogs of Velvet and Steel," offered videos showing dogfights as well as videos showing pit bulls mauling pigs.

Stevens had been convicted under a law, originally authored by Republican U.S. Rep. Elton Gallegly of California, incited by reports of crush videos.

"Crush videos often depict 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,' " Roberts explained, quoting in part from a congressional report.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchy...l#ixzz0lfdI8Dwl

Never mind legal, who gets sexually stimulated by such things and would want to buy it?

[Nagishkaw 510]

Pretty sick individuals, that's who.

[Ali G. 37]

Ah the US supreme court, delivering more idiocy with each ruling.

What next? Videos of abused children being considered freedom of speech.

[Ban Hammer 14,371]

Pretty sick individuals, that's who.

amen

[scandal 951]

In an 8-1 decision that united the court's liberal and conservative wings

...

Earlier this year, by a 5-4 vote — a much narrower decision — the Roberts court likewise struck down on free-speech grounds campaign finance restrictions on corporate campaign spending.

...

Justice Samuel Alito was the sole dissenter. He challenged as unrealistic Roberts' claim that hunting depictions might be outlawed, and he said the law's exemptions for "educational" or "journalistic" depictions were sufficient.

The Justices are not condoning any cruelty to animals. Anyone who abuses animals receives no protection from this ruling. The decision affects only the ability to possess and distribute the images. They may be reprehensible, but that's what freedom of speech means - putting up with atrocious and hideous speech. That's why the ACLU (correctly) supported the rights of neoNazis to march in Skokie, and why flag-burning probably should be legal. They're all abhorrent, but free society can be a rough and tumble.

I'm glad that the court ruled 8-1 - that really is a victory for speech. I was curious to see who was the holdout - Alito. Ok, but it's refreshing to see Ginsburg and Stevens on the same side with Thomas and Scalia. That doesn't happen very often. It's interesting that here we got an 8-1 decision, whereas in the campaign finance ruling the court split 5-4.

[Ali G. 37]

What an idiotic mindset, as it means you also endorse photos of children being abused or child pornography. Hey, as long as the didn't take them right.

Scandal, still Visa journeys #1 fuckwit

Edited April 21, 2010 by Ali G.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Scandal, still Visa journeys #1 fuckwit

Nah, you've had #1 sewed up for a long time.

[Nagishkaw 510]

What an idiotic mindset, as it means you also endorse photos of children being abused or child pornography. Hey, as long as the didn't take them right.

Scandal, still Visa journeys #1 fuckwit

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/252819-update-laptop-controvesy/

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

The Justices are not condoning any cruelty to animals. Anyone who abuses animals receives no protection from this ruling. The decision affects only the ability to possess and distribute the images. They may be reprehensible, but that's what freedom of speech means - putting up with atrocious and hideous speech. That's why the ACLU (correctly) supported the rights of neoNazis to march in Skokie, and why flag-burning probably should be legal. They're all abhorrent, but free society can be a rough and tumble.

I'm glad that the court ruled 8-1 - that really is a victory for speech. I was curious to see who was the holdout - Alito. Ok, but it's refreshing to see Ginsburg and Stevens on the same side with Thomas and Scalia. That doesn't happen very often. It's interesting that here we got an 8-1 decision, whereas in the campaign finance ruling the court split 5-4.

The ruling was based on the fact that the law is overly broad and void for vagueness. It would have made hunting videos illegal. It is being redrafted even as we speak.

[Nagishkaw 510]

It would have made hunting videos illegal.

Good.

[Pooky 3,880]

It would have made hunting videos illegal. It is being redrafted even as we speak.

I'd like to see how our legislators tapdance around this one. Because in the end, isn't sport hunting just another form of animal cruelty? I mean, the animal winds up dead, just for the sake of it, so where's the difference?

[Nagishkaw 510]

0h look, his legs are still kicking ! We got him !

sldigjer9tgjsopfvjhbjkdsobjszlxdfnboawoyuieprjpaodgjspfbjapzdovjpfojbnd !!!!!!!!!

[Danno 1,228]

I'd like to see how our legislators tapdance around this one. Because in the end, isn't sport hunting just another form of animal cruelty? I mean, the animal winds up dead, just for the sake of it, so where's the difference?

IN fact, eating KFC could also be considered -One mans pleasure at the expense of a poor defenseless creature.... and again whats the diff, the animal ends up dead in all these cases.

[Ali G. 37]

Nah, you've had #1 sewed up for a long time.

Rest assured, had it not been for you retardation, you'd be #1.