Must Be The Rarified Air They Breath

[Lady's Human]

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!)

[smokey the elder]

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.

[Twisterdog]

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.

[wombat2u2004]

The point is, you can't allow some freedom of speech and press and not all.

Not even for the public good ???

[phesina]

Is there some way this law could be written more tightly so that it would pass Constitutional muster?

[lizbud]

Is there some way this law could be written more tightly so that it would pass Constitutional muster?

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.

[Grace]

Susan Estrich column for today -

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

[Twisterdog]

Not even for the public good ???

By whos definition, though?

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.

[wombat2u2004]

By whos definition, though?
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.

Who defines "public good ???
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.

[Lady's Human]

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......

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?

[Twisterdog]

Who defines "public good ???
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.

Wow. Seriously?

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.

[wombat2u2004]

Japanese-Americans were taken from their homes in WWII and placed in camps ...

That was wrong ????
Methinks that was right !!!!