Community | April 20, 2009 | 30 comments

Supreme Court to hear animal-cruelty videos case

source: http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/04/top-court-to-hear-animalcruelty-videos-case.htm...

Image
unimatrix0
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case this fall on whether the sale of videos depicting dog fights and violent deaths of small animals is protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, the Associated Press reports.

The court will hear arguments in the government’s appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down a federal law aimed at the sale of images of animal cruelty. That court, in Philadelphia, found that the 1999 law illegally restricts speech, although it acknowledged that preventing cruelty to animals is a worthy goal.

Lawmakers were especially interested in limiting the sale of tapes of fights between pit bulls and so-called crush videos that show women crushing to death small animals, often with their bare feet or high-heeled shoes, the AP says.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a tough call. What do you think? Should videos of animal cruelty be granted constitutional protection?
  1. groups:
    Community,   Culture,   US Politics,   US News,   5 more
  2. tags:
    News,  Culture,  US News,  US Politics,  8 more
  3.     
    |

30 comments // Supreme Court to hear animal-cruelty videos case

  • slarabee
  • MoonLoon
    • 0
      MoonLoon  
    • slarabee:

      Bee, your reasoning is tantamount to approving the distribution of pornoflicks, dogfighting, and other perverted material. Allowing the producers and distributers to go free! You and I both know the people involved in this trade!

    • 3 years ago
  • MoonLoon
  • estee_arie
    • 0
      estee_arie  
    • slarabee:

      all horrible snuff type films should not be tolerated and people that take part and distribute these materials should be prosecuted severely. that's just my bottom line.

    • 3 years ago
  • animalia_libero
  • MoonLoon
  • AswegoAsdego
  • el_chivo
    • 0
      el_chivo  

    • Be against dog fights is not a vegan hippie thing. Is just f*cking common sense! I prefer to see a man eating a dog that put them to fight just because some sexual incident in your childhood makes you “feel funny” when you see dogs fighting.

    • 3 years ago
  • MoonLoon
    • 0
      MoonLoon  

    • This is not a tough call for me. Dogfights, Chicken Fights (in most states) are illegal and anyone distributing videos of illegal actions should be jailed. Don't forget "snuff" films that attract the same perverts; they should all be prosecuted, just as child pornography perpetrators. Gambling and sexual perversion is the root cause of the existence of these films. Now the question is, if you favor them which catagory do you fall in.
      Cage fighting for humans is O.K. by me. At least they have a choice to fight or not.

    • 3 years ago
  • estee_arie
  • estee_arie
  • 747nomad
    • 0
      747nomad  

    • Ok give the dog rights he is are best friend. Ones you let the jenny out you can't put it back. Expect every animal activist vie for there loved cat, rat, snake, and then we won't be eating chicken or steak.

    • 3 years ago
  • ashcatash
  • SkullBoy
    • 0
      SkullBoy  

    • Do you know WHY they made The Empire Strikes Back, The Return of the Jedi, Star Wars I: Phantom Menace, Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones, and Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith AFTER the first showing of Star Wars in 1977?

      BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WANTED TO SEE MORE!

    • 3 years ago
  • estee_arie
  • el_chivo
  • SkullBoy
    • 0
      SkullBoy  
    • SkullBoy:

      Um, Noooo?! What I'm saying is that if they DO allow these videos to be available to the public, THEN more and more people will be tempted to watch them regardless if they're right or wrong.

    • 2 years ago
  • estee_arie
  • estee_arie
  • ashcatash
    • 0
      ashcatash  

    • For making those videos and selling them, NO they shouldn't be prosecuted. yeah yeah, freedom of speech and all that.
      BUT forcing animals to fight each other or torturing small creatures IS illegal and so they should be prosecuted about that, with their own videos as foolproof evidence!!
      How I HATE HATE HATE people who are cruel to animals!!!!!

    • 3 years ago
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  

    • This really is a tough one, free speech shouldn't be abridged.

      But the Supreme Court has done it before, like anglcazn said, with snuff films and I think that makes sense.

      The trick is to remember that just because we regulate -some- speech does NOT mean we can regulate anything we please, ESPECIALLY political ideas.

    • 3 years ago
  • anglcazn
    • 0
      anglcazn  

    • Their argument is solid. Except, of course,the fact that animals are being used in an cruel and inhumane way. Everyone is entitled to the first amendment. But, when it harms another such as animals or a person, it violates laws and the first amendment no longer applies.

      This argument can go the same for snuff films. Except, people are dying in those films.

      It's practically the same. The only difference is that one involves humans and one involves animals.

    • 3 years ago
  • jahbini
    • 0
      jahbini  
    • anglcazn:

      The flip side is a bit like the extermination of Jews during WWII. As ugly and cruel as that time was, the fact that there are so few documented visuals give the holocaust deniers that tiny wiggle-room that lets them promote their lies.

      Complete suppression of videos of cruelty may lead to us ignoring the fact that it happens; we need to make sure that the offenders get caught.

      You know "lest we forget"...

    • 3 years ago
  • anglcazn
    • 0
      anglcazn  
    • anglcazn:

      But that is not the point of this case. The point of this case is that this man wants to continue making a profit by selling videos of dog fighting. This is not about some kind of documentary or video about the problems of dog fighting. This is a man who wants to make money and continue making money through the usage of cruelty of animals.

    • 3 years ago
  • jahbini
    • 0
      jahbini  

    • Freedom of Speech is a right, and I don't think that is a real problem here. The problem I see is that these videos give total anonymity to the source of the video.

      If the video is properly tagged with who took the video, the identities of any person's involved,and when and where it happened, then the video would pass a litmus for legitimacy.

      Freedom of 'rumor', where the true facts of origin are suppressed, may be stretching the limits of 'free speech' especially torture, cruelty, abuse or other grievous criminal activity is the subject.

    • 3 years ago
  • sarahlane
  • J_0
  • pjacobs51
    • 0
      pjacobs51  

    • I wouldn't think so, I would put them in the same category as child pornography. Some things just aren't meant to be seen by the public, no matter sick they are.

    • 3 years ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos