Supreme Court rejects law banning animal-cruelty videos

[Ali G. 37]

Hunting is one thing, while watching animals be abused for amusement is obviously something else. If something (an action) is illegal to do in person, then surely it should be illegal to watch and propagate. Sure is the case in the rest of the first world. It's why websites showing photos of people graphically killed are legal in the United States, yet banned everywhere else in the first world.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

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

Still nothing but lame comebacks? Try again. Show us your superior intellect.

[Ali G. 37]

Still nothing but lame comebacks? Try again. Show us your superior intellect.

Of course your "comebacks" are of the highest intelligence. Bud, you have already proven you are an ignorant ethnocentric ####, don't add narcissism to it.

The devil is in the detail, hence your first post having nothing to do with the OP whatsoever.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Ali G.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hunting is one thing, while watching animals be abused for amusement is obviously something else. If something (an action) is illegal to do in person, then surely it should be illegal to watch and propagate. Sure is the case in the rest of the first world. It's why websites showing photos of people graphically killed are legal in the United States, yet banned everywhere else in the first world.

How? Isn't hunting a "sport"? As in... people do it for fun?

[Peikko 1,575]

To be fair, not always, and indeed not originally. Hunting in its purest form is not sport but acquisition of meat and other useful items. Of course, if the people who go out 'hunting' have no intention of using their quarry for anything other than deriving pleasure from the kill then that becomes something completely different.

I personally do not believe that original hunters derived pleasure from the kill so much as they derived satisfaction from a job well done, particularly when they executed a clean death blow to produce meat and hide of top quality. I think there are still many hunters who continue in this tradition.

However, where it becomes problematic is where the aesthetics of the hunt take priority over any useful function that is derived from killing the quarry beyond pleasure. I don't think it's beyond the whit of man to be able to distinguish one from the other and legislate accordingly.

[Ali G. 37]

How? Isn't hunting a "sport"? As in... people do it for fun?

Hunting an animal and killing it humanely is quite different to someone recording the abuse or torture of animals, for some sick personal pleasure. If they are going to allow that then it means they will allow anything captured by others, including the abuse of children or other humans. So when people wonder why the rest of the developed world mocks America, it's because of lunacy like this that is considered freedom and actually endorsed by the US courts. Contrary to scandal tossing over the US system daily, there is a reason why nobody else in the first world wants or uses it.

Personally, I don't hunt, as I don't feel the need to kill defenseless animals to feel tough. However, I do understand the sport.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The point of contention is that it's difficult to separate videos that show animal cruelty from videos of people hunting.

Obviously it's because it relies on a subjective determination of what constitutes cruelty.

[Ali G. 37]

The point of contention is that it's difficult to separate videos that show animal cruelty from videos of people hunting.

Obviously it's because it relies on a subjective determination of what constitutes cruelty.

Both of our mother countries don't have a problem distinguishing between the two. It's also why the propagation of graphic photos of people's deaths is not permitted. This ruling is just another example of what America considers to be freedoms. I am willing to personally vouch that the a majority of people in the develop world cringe at this.

As I said, it's quite simple to police. Something than is unlawful to do in person, should also unlawful to film and distribute. Then again you are not going to have a problem with this because you have openly stated in the past the you feel graphic images, games, movies etc do not have any negative affect on a society.

Nevertheless, the problem with the Constitution is that it's too vague and people use this ambiguity (loophole) to promote their own agenda. Even a four years old would realize that the 'founding father's never could envision or intent 90% of the ####### that is now protected by it to be so. Freedom actually meant freedom from the tyranny of a king.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Ali G.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Both of our mother countries don't have a problem distinguishing between the two. It's also why the propagation of graphic photos of people's deaths is not permitted. This ruling is just another example of what America considers to be freedoms. I am willing to personally vouch that the a majority of people in the develop world cringe at this.

As I said, it's quite simple to police. Something than is unlawful to do in person, should also unlawful to film and distribute. Then again you are not going to have a problem with this because you have openly stated in the past the you feel graphic images, games, movies etc do not have any negative affect on a society.

Nevertheless, the problem with the Constitution is that it's too vague and people use this ambiguity (loophole) to promote their own agenda. Even a four years old would realize that the 'founding father's never could envision or intent 90% of the ####### that is now protected by it to be so. Freedom actually meant freedom from the tyranny of a king.

it's not an issue in Britain because there isn't a lot of hunting that goes on for people to record video of.

You really do need to stop throwing red herrings, btw

[Ali G. 37]

it's not an issue in Britain because there isn't a lot of hunting that goes on for people to record video of.

You really do need to stop throwing red herrings, btw

What about videos, and I quote, "depicting wanton animal cruelty", "videos showing pit bulls mauling pigs" or "videos often depict women slowly crushing animals to death 'with their bare feet or while wearing high heeled shoes ...over 'the cries and squeals of the animals"? Would they be legal? Would that be considered "sport" in the UK?

Nevertheless, the supreme court rejected a law that specifically targets animal-cruelty. That is what counts. That specifically is what is illegal in every other first world country.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Ali G.

[scandal 951]

LA Times Opinion Page

Reaffirming free speech

The Supreme Court, in a dogfighting case, declares a 1999 federal law unconstitutional.

April 21, 2010 | 9:21 a.m.

A nearly unanimous Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a resounding reaffirmation of the importance of free speech in a case arising from the sordid "sport" of dogfighting.

As is often true in 1st Amendment cases, the victor in this decision is an unsympathetic figure. Robert Stevens, a Virginia pit bull breeder, advertised videos portraying dogfights, as well as an "instructional video" on using pit bulls to hunt boar. Stevens was sentenced to 37 months in prison for violating a federal law criminalizing the creation, possession or sale of a "depiction of animal cruelty."

The 1999 law was inspired by the existence of fetishistic "crush videos" that portray women stamping on animals, but its language was way too broad — "a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth," according to the court, and thus unconstitutional.

Writing for himself and every other justice but Samuel A. Alito Jr., Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that the law could criminalize depictions of hunting or of the slaughter of livestock. (Roberts indicated that a narrower statute targeting crush videos might be constitutional — a suggestion quickly endorsed by animal rights activists.)

Although this case focused on a fringe phenomenon, the reasoning of the decision is significant for the future of the 1st Amendment. The chief justice's eloquent opinion suggests that, whatever other precedents may be at risk under the Roberts Court, landmark decisions protecting free speech are secure.

First, Roberts rejected the argument that the court should declare depictions of animal cruelty totally outside the protection of the 1st Amendment, part of a narrow category of excluded speech that includes obscenity and child pornography. Second, he embraced the idea of striking down laws that limit free speech on their face, rather than considering only specific violations — a practice that discourages Congress and state legislatures from passing unnecessarily sweeping laws that might chill expression.

Tuesday's decision accords with past 1st Amendment rulings in another way: The majority comprised both liberal and conservative justices. That was the case, for example, with the 1989 decision extending 1st Amendment protection to the burning of the American flag as a political protest.

As Roberts observed, the existence of the 1st Amendment "reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh the costs." It is reassuring that this Supreme Court, like its predecessors, understands that.

Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What about videos, and I quote, "depicting wanton animal cruelty", "videos showing pit bulls mauling pigs" or "videos often depict women slowly crushing animals to death 'with their bare feet or while wearing high heeled shoes ...over 'the cries and squeals of the animals"? Would they be legal? Would that be considered "sport" in the UK?

Nevertheless, the supreme court rejected a law that specifically targets animal-cruelty. That is what counts.

They aren't legal, no - but we don't have hunting videos so there isn't an equivalent comparison.

On the bolded - the law was rejected because it was deemed that it was unnecessarily vague and potentially sweeping.

[Ali G. 37]

They aren't legal, no - but we don't have hunting videos so there isn't an equivalent comparison.

On the bolded - the law was rejected because it was deemed that it was unnecessarily vague and potentially sweeping.

I understand why it was rejected, I am not arguing that. What I am asking is why every other first world country disallows such rubbish from propagating within their society, yet the same thing is considered free speech here. Furthermore, I am pondering the rationale of a country where the justices always get to decide the fate and direction of the country.

I don't need to get into which system is better and the most preferred by the civilized first world and which is the butt of jokes. The choice of immigration by most residing in the first world is a clear indication of which 'approach' they deem the more civilized one. This is just another example of something that those in the rest of the developed world will frown on. Furthermore, state only in America

Edited April 21, 2010 by Ali G.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I understand why it was rejected, I am not arguing that. What I am asking is why every other first world country disallows such rubbish from propagating within their society, yet the same thing is considered free speech here. Furthermore, I am pondering the rationale of a country where the justices always get to decide the fate and direction of the country.

If you understand why the law was rejected (and will be reconsidered once it is rewritten to remove any amiguity) then there is no need for a big rant about how rubbish USA is.

I don't need to go in which system is better and the most preferred by the civilized first world. The choice of immigration by most in the first world is a clear indication of which approach they deem the more civilized one. The is just another example of something that those in the rest of the developed world, will frown on.

Herring.

[Ali G. 37]

If you understand why the law was rejected (and will be reconsidered once it is rewritten to remove any amiguity) then there is no need for a big rant about how rubbish USA is.

Herring.

Not a rant at all actually. This is another example of just how out of touch the Constitution is. Next the Supreme court is going to consider child abuse freedom of something. As I have said may times before, like many on here from first world countries, had it not been for our spouses we wouldn't step foot here. Idiocy like this is an example of why.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Ali G.