WASHINGTON - 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.
Justices reject ban on animal cruelty videos - Crime & courts- msnbc.com
Well, I dont really know about the ruling. It's kinda messed up to film animal cruelty for pleasure.
But hey you learn a new sexual fetish everyday
I know. Who gets off on that kind of crap? :thumbdown
I haven't read the ruling and it is hard to see what the value of a "crush film" is but the law could have (perhaps) banned something like those outdoor shows where Terrible Ted Nugent arrows some stag with his trusty compound bow or Excalibur Crossbow President Bill Troubridge nails a trophy Moose in the Canadian wilderness. After all the PETA extremists think that showing a hunting film is no different than watching Maggie DeSade waste a hamster with her Jimmy Choos
But the court said the legislation passed by Congress was far too broad. Anyone who "creates, sells or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty" for commercial gain can be imprisoned for up to five years. A depiction of cruelty was defined as one in which "a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed."
Roberts wrote that the definition was so loose that it could include all depictions of wounding or killing animals, even hunting videos or magazines.
washingtonpost.com
I'd say anything beyond making them put a rating on the video, it's a free speech violation.I am always fascinated by cases that result in a large vote of both the liberal and the conservative justices. Alito was the only dissent here.
I don't know what I think of the ruling.
I'd say anything beyond making them put a rating on the video, it's a free speech violation.
Yeah, I'm not sure you can ban it. But WTF sort of fetish is that!?
They could.
If your position on the matter is like mine i.e I don't give a flying whatever what two consenting individuals do in the privacy of their own bedroom as long as it doesn't break the law......
And imo torturing small animals to death for sexual pleasure violates animal welfare laws promoting and or profiting the torture of said animals also violates the law; then yes, I guess they could ban the practice.
They just need to draft a law that is more tailored to this situation. The one that was overturned was too broad.
Man... never heard of crushing videos, sounds messed up. And I know a thing or two about messed up, I have watched and seen any type of hentai out there, and not even that has crushing fetishes.. tentacles yes... crushing no...
Interesting ruling never the less.
Maybe they voted by butterfly ballot and he got confused?Alito was the only dissent here.
I figured that that is what judges are for though...
I am always fascinated by cases that result in a large vote of both the liberal and the conservative justices. Alito was the only dissent here.
I don't know what I think of the ruling.
Interesting conundrum indeed. I guess the only sensible way to deal with this is to leave the law intact and allow a judge to, you know, judge it on a case by case basis.....
You know, a guy catching a fish or shooting a moose? sure. Thats hunting.
A guy sticking a firecracker up a puppys butt?
No.
I haven't read the ruling and it is hard to see what the value of a "crush film" is but the law could have (perhaps) banned something like those outdoor shows where Terrible Ted Nugent arrows some stag with his trusty compound bow or Excalibur Crossbow President Bill Troubridge nails a trophy Moose in the Canadian wilderness. After all the PETA extremists think that showing a hunting film is no different than watching Maggie DeSade waste a hamster with her Jimmy Choos
The main problem with the law is that it was so broad that, theoretically, animal rights activists protesting slaughter houses by taking pictures could be prosecuted under it. SCOTUS did not rule, based on any First Amendment argument. They ruled on the broadness of the law, and struck it down for that reason.
Actually, it's the legistlor's job to write law.
That's why the appeals process exists isn't it?Considering that we have 15-year-old couples who have sex and then upon breaking up the mother of the daughter goes to the police and press charges against the ex-boyfriend based on sex offender laws that are written to target child molesters, no, I don't trust judges to judge these on a case by case basis, nor for prosecutors to use their prosecutorial discretion in deciding which cases need to be prosecuted and which need to be dropped just because they want a higher number in their "Win" column for when they run for some other office.
They should write a narrower law.
It's a police matter to enforce it, and a judges job to apply it. It's your AGs job to decide what law enforcement should enforce also. Just because a law is on the books doesn't mean it's applied in every possible case or that there should be a punishment for every instance. However the option is there should it be needed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?