Supreme Court rejects law banning animal-cruelty videos

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again... if you understand that the law was rejected because it was badly laid out and framed in a way that was ambiguous, then you would understand that the issue it relates to is being dismissed on procedural, not constitutional grounds.

[Ali G. 37]

Again... if you understand that the law was rejected because it was badly laid out and framed in a way that was ambiguous, then you would understand that the issue it relates to is being dismissed on procedural, not constitutional grounds.

I don't see any of that in the law.

The law imposed penalties of up to five years in prison for anyone who knowingly "creates, sells or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty." Animal cruelty is defined as having "intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed" an animal, if the behavior is also illegal in the jurisdiction where it's filmed.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You just said you understood why the law was rejected and are "not arguing that".

Please try to read things before you go off on hysterical rants that run the entire country down on the basis of a news headline. It wouldn't go amiss to ditch some of your preconceived ideas to boot.

[Ali G. 37]

You just said you understood why the law was rejected and are "not arguing that".

Please try to read things before you go off on hysterical rants that run the entire country down on the basis of a news headline. It wouldn't go amiss to ditch some of your preconceived ideas to boot.

Likewise, you said the law was ambiguous and shot down because of it. Clearly it is not, furthermore, is actually written in a manner that even a three year old could understand.

Actually, what I meant is that I understood how the system works here. I did not claim to have read the ruling, as I am not interesting in what US supreme courts have to say. While you are arguing the details of the case, I am looking at the outcome and the consequences of their decision. Their idiotic reasoning is of no concern to me.

Never liked the first amendment nor its ambiguity and never will. Unfortunately, that does not amount to "run the entire country down". Whereas, rational discussions of the status-quo, to the likes of those held abroad, is why countries like Australia and Canada, not so much the UK, are now on the top of the food chain. Also why your countrymen are migrating there by the droves. While unfortunate, America has become a country for self-centered egotistical douche-bags like Mark or weirdos like Scandal.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Ali G.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The two lines you posted do not establish any difference between hunting videos and say, someone who films a dog-fight.

Yes, it is CLEARLY ambigious.

And FFS will you STFU you about Britons in Australia!? Can you get it into your head that I have no interest whatsoever in living there.

[Ali G. 37]

The two lines you posted do not establish any difference between hunting videos and say, someone who films a dog-fight.

Yes, it is CLEARLY ambigious.

Strange because I have not read anywhere that is was rejected solely because it was too ambiguous and also included hunting. Rather, all evidence points to it being rejected because it deemed that someone seeking pleasure in the grotesque torture of animals, is a first amendment right.

Torture such as:

• Videos depicting wanton animal cruelty
  
• Videos showing pit bulls mauling pigs
  
• Videos often depict women slowly crushing animals to death 'with their bare feet or while wearing high heeled shoes
  
• The cries and squeals of the animals being used as a sexual fetish.
  

And FFS will you STFU you about Britons in Australia!? Can you get it into your head that I have no interest whatsoever in living there.

Hmm, didn't realize I ever said you or anyone here should go or move there. No offense, but I would want to pollute that country with some on here. Nevertheless, I simply pointed out the reality that it's their country of choice. Had it been US style Constitutionally protected freedom, then surely the US would be it.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Ali G.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Read and learn.

Supreme Court justices, by an 8-1 vote, ruled the federal law was "substantially overbroad, and therefore invalid under the First Amendment."

In Tuesday's decision, justices ruled the law was too broad and could be interpreted to include such activities as hunting.

"Hunting is unlawful in the District of Columbia, for example, but there is an enormous national market for hunting-related depictions, greatly exceeding the demand for crush videos or animal fighting depictions," Chief Justice John Roberts, wrote in the court's opinion for the majority. "Because the statute allows each jurisdiction to export its laws to the rest of the country, (the law) applies to any magazine or video depicting lawful hunting that is sold in the Nation's Capital."

[CDAgirlMI 51]

I hunt. I, along with anyone who wants it, eats what we kill.

I don't think what we do is cruelty to animals.

[Ali G. 37]

Read and learn.

Likewise,

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.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The key word there is "unnecessarily sweeping laws". The point of contention is that The First Amendment is infringed because the law is worded in a way that is unnecessarily vague and would have an unintended consequences beyond the small number of people it is intended to target.

Remove the ambiguity and Bob will be your father's brother.

[Ali G. 37]

Remove the ambiguity and Bob will be your father's brother.

If that is the case, then why is it not written or implied anywhere? Surely these master of the universe supreme court judges would have said it. After all, this is not some sort of educational setting, with the teacher telling you to try again. Rather, it sounds like a case of regardless of any state law, without a constitutional amendment such grotesque videos depicting the torture and abuse of animals will continue. That is not my opinion either, Mr Roberts clearly states he has no intention of including it "part of a narrow category of excluded speech that includes obscenity and child pornography".

Edited April 21, 2010 by Ali G.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

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.

OH, I forgot, everything you post is relevant. Just because you say it is. Try again. For someone who is so educated, you don't have any common sense or street smarts, do you?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

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.

Look. People want they're meat packaged in plastic. They don't want to know where it came from. As far as they're concerned it's Soylent green.

[Ali G. 37]

OH, I forgot, everything you post is relevant. Just because you say it is. Try again. For someone who is so educated, you don't have any common sense or street smarts, do you?

No spook it's my opinion. Evidently you still get some sort of ####### when I post. It's not healthy bud.

[Pooky 3,930]

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.

What part of hunting for sport do you not understand?

Hunting for sport involves killing for the sake of killing. No use is made of the dead animal other than as a trophy. If the meat is eaten, it is not hunting for sport, it moves into the realm of subsistence.

I hunt. I, along with anyone who wants it, eats what we kill.

I don't think what we do is cruelty to animals.

And I have no problem with that.

I only object to killing animals for the sake of it.