I find it amazing that they are going to follow the Constitution on this one after ignoring it earlier.
"High court overturns ban on animal cruelty videos" by Robert Barnes, Washington Post | April 21, 2010
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck down a federal law yesterday aimed at banning videos depicting graphic violence against animals, saying that it violates the constitutional right to free speech.
Chief Justice John J. Roberts Jr., writing for an eight-member majority, said the law was overly broad and not allowed by the First Amendment....
Technically he is probably right, and I cringe at any restrictions on speech; however, my tolerance for sick individuals is really reaching a limit.
The law was enacted in 1999 to forbid sales of so-called crush videos, which appeal to a certain sexual fetish by depicting the torture of animals or showing them being crushed to death by women with stiletto heels or their bare feet.
I'm appalled that there are such people in this world.
Sometimes I think it is time to get out the blade the French made and just start lining them up. Bankers over here, war criminals over there, perverts this way, please.
But the government has not prosecuted such a case. Instead, the case before the court, United States v. Stevens, came from Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Va., convicted and sentenced to three years in prison for videos he made about pit bull fighting.
So the government chose the wrong case, huh? Can't they do anything right?
Animal rights groups and 26 states had joined the Obama administration in support of the 1999 law. They argued that videos showing animal cruelty should be treated like child pornography rather than granted constitutional protection.
But Roberts said the federal law was so broadly written it could include all depictions of killing animals, even hunting videos....
I mean, really!
They spend all this time writing these things and they are left with loopholes?
See: Reading the Health Care Fine Print For the Little People
You know, if it were just once....
David Horowitz, executive director of the Media Coalition, said in response to the ruling: “We are gratified that the justices soundly rejected the government’s invitation to create a new exception to the First Amendment.
“As today’s ruling demonstrates, if the Court were to rewrite the First Amendment every time an unpopular or distasteful subject was at issue, we wouldn’t have any free speech left.
I am forced to agree; however, I'll skip the late-night stag session, thanks.
“We continue to believe that animal cruelty is wrong and should be vigorously prosecuted, but as the Court today found, sending people to prison for making videos is not the answer.’’
Especially when YouTube already yanks those critical of Israel.
--more--"
Also see: Clear the Court: Surfing For Porn
Clear the Court: Condoning Cyberbullying
Clear the Court: Texting Tom
What the heck, Americans?
I'm getting all sorts of mixed signals from the court.
