Court voids law aimed at animal cruelty videos (words just fail me right now)

[Peacetrain]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100420/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_pit_bull_videos

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 3 mins ago

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.

The videos virtually disappeared once the measure became law, the government argued.

But Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said the law goes too far, suggesting that a measure limited to crush videos might be valid. Animal cruelty and dog fighting already are illegal throughout the country.

[NoNothing]

1. Why do words fail you?

Do you think the law did *not* "go too far?"

[DainBramaged]

3. So, animal cruelty is OK with you?

[NoNothing]

4. Idiotic

Are you really taking the position that anything at all we permit the depiction of, we are "OK with?"

So, I'm assuming you are completely in favor of banning any talk about the Holocaust, right? Or are you OK with the Holocaust?

Animal cruelty is, and will remain, illegal.

This case was not about animal cruelty. It was about *speech*.

[Romulox]

5. Filming is an action in addition to whatever speech value it has.

Filming kiddie porn is not thought to be protected by the First Amendment. Wherein lies the distinction? :hi:

[NoNothing]

6. The distinction is this:

Children, unlike animals, have legal rights that are per se violated by the distribution and possession of child porn. While we have laws protecting animals, they do not possess the same rights as human children.

[Romulox]

10. That is not the legal analysis applied to First Amendment cases.

Government restrictions on free speech are judged under the "strict scrutiny" standard, wherein the gov't must show:

1) a compelling governmental interest.
2) the policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest.
3) the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest

The factor you mentioned (the relative rights of animals vs. children) obliquely factors into the first factor, but it's a tough argument to say that the government doesn't have a compelling interest in regulating cruelty to animals. So the decision likely hinges on the second or third factors. I don't know if it is available yet.

[NoNothing]

11. It is available

It mostly hinged on the second and third - the law was impermissibly broad, and banned an entire category of things unrelated to the supposed harms addressed by the legislation, to the point that even videos of animals hunting other animals would be banned by the language of the law.

The justices suggest it is possible that a narrower law would have been upheld, but I am as skeptical of the "compelling governmental interests" in that scenario as I am in virtually all obscenity cases.

[DainBramaged]

13. But corporations possess greater rights to free speech than protecting animals?

keep digging.

[anigbrowl]

18. Completely different issue.

There are 9 justices on the court and they vote as individuals. 3 of them agreed with this verdict, who did not agree with the FEC decision.

Anyway, decisions about one part of the law have nothing to do with decisions about another. If the supreme Court unanimously decided that apple pie was constitutionally forbidden they would be wrong, but it would have no effect on the validity of any other judgment.

[anigbrowl]

17. the distinction lies in...

...the fact that kiddie porn (and some other kinds of porn) do not pass the Miller test for obscenity, which latter is predicated on depictions of sexual activity.

Incidentally, in this case the video involved historical footage shot in Japan in the 60s, with the defendant commenting on it. AFAIK (but haven't done research) he didn't film any dogfighting himself.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NoNothing]

14. I don't need to answer the question

Because it is *irrelevant* and a red herring.

Your opinion that *speech depicting* crime should be as illegal as crime itself is idiotic and authoritarian. Just try thinking through the consequences of that principle for a few minutes.

[superduperfarleft]

15. You'll take my DVD of "Half-Baked" from my cold, dead hands!

[anigbrowl]

19. 'If animal cruelty is illegal, how can videos depicting same be legal?'

Depictions of illegal acts are not illegal in and of themselves, whether fictional or factual. See Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002).

[Submariner]

2. If nothing else this sucky strike down will expose

the animal cruelty sickos in our midst and open them up to prosecution, or a hard f'ing beat down if I ever have the misfortune of witnessing such a cruel event.

[aquart]

8. Yup. Use the videos as evidence.

[superduperfarleft]

7. Dupe.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8181707

And I agree with this ruling.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. I've got a word: good.

It was a stupid, unconstitutional law.

[SoCalDem]

16. SCOTUS theme song.. "Anything Goes"...n/t