Printable View
I have been waiting for this decision. I knew it was on the courts calender.
I am deeply disappointed in the decision to void the cruelty law. I wonder
what planet these justices live on. They say it's ok to film acts of cruelty (which are illegal).
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/20/...ex.html?hpt=T2
It's Sotomayor's doing, everyone knows that Latinos are huge fans of animal fighting.Quote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
Morons.
If they had decided differently I would have been rather irritated, to put it mildly.
The decision was 8-1. Not even a close decision. The US Government CANNOT make laws censoring speech. If someone is doing a documentary on an unpopular subject, what's to prevent Congress from quickly making a law saying that that film is illegal?
Free speech is a fundamental right. This and the McCain-Feingold decision somewhat restore my faith that the USSC is doing its job, regardless of how popular their decisions might be.
Richard, the vote was 8-1. I hardly think you could blame just one Justice.
Alito was the hold-out. Good for him :)
I am being facetious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace
For pete's sake....They televise the Cubs games, isn't that torture?;)
-----------------
This bust took place up the street from me.
1,500 animals!
As much as it pains me to say this? Most cockfighting rings that are busted here in So Cal are run by Mexicans who just cannot seem to let this go.
And if the truth is known?
This fact is comparable to the known habits of people who fight dogs.....The idiots that run these 'gladiator' fights probably take better care of the animals than they do their own families. :rolleyes:
Not a badge of honor, nor anything to take pride in. It's one of those 'things' like the SCJ ruling on videos of animals, that are the distasteful part of life.
IT like the AHs the protest at the funerals of soldiers. I would love to see what they would say after I parked my truck on top of them, but it is one of those "protected" rights that people have.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...in-sylmar.html
Were the justices smoking crack when they made this absolutely ridiculous decision.
No, they were striking down a law which treads on a little thing called the Bill of Rights. (And they didn't even have to create a right or interpret what the founders meant to come to the decision!)Quote:
Originally Posted by moosmom
I agree with LH. The ruling was that the law was "too broad". If censorship of any type is allowed, no matter how distasteful the message, it sets a dangerous precedent, IMO. This is why the KKK, al Qaeda, etc. websites are per se not taken down; however, they can be portals for law enforcement to go after those that do illegal deeds.
I too agree with LH and STE. Freedom means freedom, you can't pick and choose. Once you start that, there is no end to it.
They are not saying that cruelty is now legal. They are saying that documenting it is legal. If it were not, no one could make a documentary about dogfighting or illegal whaling, for example. No one could film the TV shows everyone loves about cops and criminals. That is, after all, filming illegal acts, some of them no doubt cruel. Obviously, this also allows scumbags to profit from their or their friends and relatives dog fighting. But, it might also be the way the ring is identified and busted.
The point is, you can't allow some freedom of speech and press and not all.
Not even for the public good ???Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisterdog
Is there some way this law could be written more tightly so that it would pass Constitutional muster?
Quote:
Originally Posted by phesina
I am sure they are working on it already.:) They made films of child porn
illegal, I'm sure they could narrow the scope of the law. The "free speech"
argument did work when they tried to strike down the ban on child porn.
Susan Estrich column for today -
Quote:
The First Amendment and Animals
Let me be clear at the outset: I love dogs. Not like them, love them. Of course, I love mine the best: Judy J. Estrich, Molly Emily Estrich and Irving A. Estrich. Judy is named after one of my dearest friends, Judy Jarvis, who died of cancer 10 years ago. Molly is named after her dog, who took care of her when she was sick and taught me not to be afraid of big dogs. Irving is named for my father. I would kill anybody who laid a hand on them.
That is why I so strongly support the efforts of Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Calif., and Rep. James Moran, D-Va., to enact legislation aimed at prohibiting the sale and distribution of "crush" videos depicting senseless and vicious animal cruelty.
In 1999, according to the Humane Society of the United States, there were as many as 3,000 videos on the market depicting animals being crushed, burned or impaled for so-called "entertainment" value. After Gallegly's initial bill was enacted, the market disappeared. But earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court held that law to be unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds, finding that it swept too broadly and could be construed to apply (even though no one ever has) even to hunting videos.
Videos of women in high heels crushing puppies to death are a far cry from hunting videos. I'm glad that the conservative court has embraced the First Amendment, which they don't always do. But nothing in the First Amendment allows for the celebration of criminal cruelty. Just as we protect children through carefully tailored bans on child pornography, so should we be entitled to protect animals from the effects of gratuitous and criminal violence.
In 2008, a federal court of appeals struck down the law that Gallegly championed.
Subsequently, the Humane Society found that the blatantly offensive videos that had disappeared from the market in 1999 were all over the Internet.
I was teaching a First Amendment class at that time and remember assigning my students the task of finding the "outer limit" of protected speech. I don't shock easily, but I was shocked. What kind of a person would make such things or watch them?
I understand the dangers of content-based regulation. I understand that the answer to bad ideas is debate and not censorship. But I am hard-pressed to come up with any argument as to the value of protecting depictions of criminal cruelty and the brutal murder of animals. These are not hunting videos we are talking about. They aren't images of slaughterhouses. Staging such events would be criminal (just ask Michael Vick), and recording them and selling them should be, too.
The new bill introduced by Gallegly and Moran this week would prohibit the interstate sale of images of animals being "intentionally crushed, burned, drowned or impaled" unless they have "religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historic or artistic value." Punishment is up to five years in prison, a fine of up to $10,000, or both. The draft bill, in an effort to satisfy First Amendment critics (including those in robes), specifically provides that it does not apply to hunting videos.
Don't expect all the critics to be satisfied. Andrew Tauber, an attorney who filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Supreme Court, is already being quoted today criticizing the bill as "presumptively unconstitutional." A new round of court challenges should be expected. Sign me up.
There's a famous Harry Truman quote I've always loved: "If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog." Dogs are lucky to have good friends in Gallegly and Moran. They just need a few more on the court.
link
Holy Smokes! I actually kind of agree with Susan Estrich!
Re-write the law, perhaps, to be VERY specific and have it apply only to video of criminal conduct. I say that, because the HSUS takes a very anti-hunting position. So, that they are championing this law, gives me pause.
Good on ya Susan........nice to see someone who stands up to the old "Freedom gone Mad" amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckstop31
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...h16th/lol1.gif You sound just like my husband, Puck. I often give him her commentaries to read, and he is very surprised to find he is in agreement.
I just got an e-mail from the ASPCA about this:
Representative Elton Gallegly of California has acted quickly and introduced a bill to amend the law. H.R. 5092 will make the Crush Act’s language more specific and resolve the over-breadth concerns raised by the Supreme Court.
Passage of H.R. 5092 will help prevent a revitalization of the crush video industry. This horrific industry has no place in a civilized society. The original Crush Act was passed with little opposition—help us ensure that this revision passes, too.
What You Can Do
AMERICANS:
Please get in touch with your representative asking him/her to support and co-sponsor this bill and act to move it quickly through the legislative process. Contact forms and more information are available through the ASPCA's web site (https://secure2.convio.net/aspca/sit...iqerd3.app223b).
and EVERYBODY:
Please spread the word to as many others (especially Americans) as you can, too!
THANK YOU!!!!!
By whos definition, though?Quote:
Originally Posted by wombat2u2004
Who defines "public good"?
That's potentially scary territory. Japanese-Americans were taken from their homes in WWII and placed in camps ... for the public good. School children were segregated by the color of their skin ... for the public good.
More specific language in this law would be wonderful, don't get me wrong, and I most sincerely hope it is reinstituted.
This made me LMAO! I knew RICHARD was being his usual tounge in cheek self but it was still dang funnay.Quote:
Originally Posted by RICHARD
Im not a big fan of the public good or the "greater good", if the .gov is for it.
This isnt about yelling fire in a movie theater or yelling bomb on an airplane.
[WHITEPOST]What if you're a bombardier? Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb bombardier[/WHITEPOST]
If we start censoring free speech we arent much better then the.........
Who defines "public good ???Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisterdog
Normal decent people do.
Do we have to have a referendum to change a Constitutional law that was originally written some 200-300 years ago ??? I think not. I'm sure the framers of that Constitution or Bill of Rights that you refer to, never intended that your Freedom of Speech would include videos of animal cruelty.
Your Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the times we live in, as ours is here in Australia. I'm sure a lot of people in your country would support that.....after all...the rest of the world recognises that your Freedom of Speech has run amok, and no longer supports the ideals of normal decent people.
No, hell no......Quote:
Your Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the times we live in, as ours is here in Australia. I'm sure a lot of people in your country would support that.....after all...the rest of the world recognises that your Freedom of Speech has run amok, and no longer supports the ideals of normal decent people.
It's not open to interpretation. Want to change it? Amend it, the process is available.
That pesky fourth amendment is SO irritating at times, though...maybe we should hold that one open to interpretation?
Then you have a problem don't you ???Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
You have a system that condones animal abuse on Youtube ???
I could go on and on.....a movie star who wines and dines the enemy in Hanoi while your soldiers starve in a pit, a supermarket in Texas that posts a sign saying we're closed today in honour of a martyr who slammed in to the WTC. Gee LH...this is all getting to be pretty stoopid.
You know what your amendments need ??? A can of petrol and a cigarette lighter.
That was wrong ????Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisterdog
Methinks that was right !!!! ;)
Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace
I read her stuff a lot. This is indeed a rare event for me. :)
Wow.Quote:
Originally Posted by wombat2u2004
You really don't understand the word liberty do you? Our liberties are supposed to be a two way street. How can you be truly free if you can be censored while not commiting a crime?
Like I said about the animal videos.... Write the law so that it is more specific, that it targets video of criminal activity.
The SCOTUS did not strike this law because they think video of animal cruelty is a good thing. They did it because the law leaves too much open to interpretation and thus could easily be misused.
Stop and think for a minute Wom.... Do you realize what you are saying? Do you understand that the US Bill of Rights is not a list of rights the government grants us? Rather it is a affirmation of God given Natural Law?
You could take a match to it all you want and it would still not take away that right. Government may not recognize the right, but all of humanity has them none the less.
BTW, Wom....
The 4th Amendment states...
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The "Patriot" Act already has pissed on this enough.
Condones animal abuse? No, just doesn't allow an openly broad view of who is to be held accountable for animal abuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by wombat2u2004
Hanoi Jane wasn't protected by the constitution, no one had the cojones to prosecute.
The grocery store in Texas is free to open and close as they wish, and post whatever signs they deem good in the windows...however they are also free to deal with the consequences.
Wow. Seriously?Quote:
Originally Posted by wombat2u2004
Because basic human rights were affirmed on paper 200+ years ago makes them obsolete? Really? Then those dusty old Ten Commandments must be utterly, laughable useless then ... Thou shalt not kill, etc ... let's rewrite, amend and change them to fit the times, make them modern, huh? Yikes.
A well thought out constitution doesn't have to change constantly with trends, that's the brilliance of it. Right is always right, and wrong is always wrong.
And again ... who defines "normal" and "decent"? Are Catholics and Jews normal, decent folks? Not to some other religions. Are single mothers normal and decent? Not the some groups. How about homosexuals? Environmentalists? Minorities? Depends on who you are asking, doesn't it? Can you not see the simple truth ... you must apply justice to everyone equally, or it isn't justice at all.