Quote:
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that even videos that depict wanton animal cruelty deserve free-speech protections under the First Amendment.
In an 8-1 decision that united the court's liberal and conservative wings, the justices struck down a law that was enacted in response to so-called "crush videos," supposedly designed to satisfy bizarre sexual cravings. The court said the law, however well-intentioned, went too far.
"Maybe there are some categories of speech that have been historically unprotected," Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority, "but if so, there is no evidence that 'depictions of animal cruelty' is among them."
The court's ruling means that animal cruelty won't be added to obscenity, fraud and the handful of other categories of constitutionally unprotected speech. It's also the latest example of a conservative-led court striking down an act of Congress with an expansive view of the First Amendment.
...
Quote:
...
Stevens’ plight has attracted substantial attention among free speech advocates. They argued that the statute sought to declare an entire area of ideas and images off limits to the public. Unpopular, dangerous, and even repulsive speech has value in a free marketplace of ideas, free speech advocates said.
...
The Supreme Court last declared an entire category of speech unprotected by the First Amendment in 1982 when the justices said child pornography did not deserve constitutional protection.
Other forms of speech declared unprotected by the First Amendment include: fighting words in 1942; threats in 1969; speech inciting illegal activity in 1969; and obscenity in 1973.
Roberts said the high court was declining the government’s invitation to carve out a new First Amendment exception for depictions of animal cruelty.
“Maybe there are some categories of speech that have been historically unprotected, but have not yet been specifically identified,” he wrote. “But if so, there is no evidence that ‘depictions of animal cruelty’ is among them.’ “
...
Any thoughts?
"I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes." - the Laughing Man
Quote:
"Crush videos often depict women slowly crushing animals to death 'with their bare feet or while wearing high-heeled shoes,' sometimes while 'talking to the animals in a kind of dominatrix patter' over 'the cries and squeals of the animals"
The United States Supreme Court thinks these videos despicting such acts are OK?
@Owl -- I think that the court made the right decision. At what point is a video considered to be depicting animal cruelty? What if it's just simulated cruelty in a horror movie? What about computer generated video where no actual animals were harmed? I am not interested in watching it because I think it's disgusting, but where do you draw the line?
Also, having a video of animal cruelty is not the same as legalizing animal cruelty. I don't think anyone could rationally extend this ruling to providing constitutional protection to the abuse of animals.
Quote:Original post by owl The United States Supreme Court thinks these videos despicting such acts are OK?
No, they think it's constitutionally protected free speech. Are you too stoned to tell the difference?
Are you too masturbated to realise I'm not stoned? That I just find it odd that they think that getting a bonner from seeing a mamal getting tortured through extremme pain is freedom of speach.
Quote:Original post by smr What's your view on this, LessBread?
@Owl -- I think that the court made the right decision. At what point is a video considered to be depicting animal cruelty? What if it's just simulated cruelty in a horror movie? What about computer generated video where no actual animals were harmed? I am not interested in watching it because I think it's disgusting, but where do you draw the line?
I think the line is clear. If you take a real living kitten and you insert it into your ass until it dies from asphixiation, that is animal cruelty. If it is CGI then it is not.
I find the material offensive, disturbing, and disgusting.
We already have obscenity laws, and they work very well. They cover acts of barbaric cruelty, and content that the local community would find patently offensive.
Every state has animal cruelty laws. Almost every state makes animal cruelty into a felony.
If those existing laws were violated, then by all means go after them.
But that doesn't mean we need to carve out a new section of law specifically for depictions of animal cruelty.
Right now traditional movie studios can follow the law and still depict violence, nudity, destruction of property, sex and sensuality, murder, and more, all within the law. They self-regulate. If these groups can produce their own disgusting videos within the law, then sure, let it be protected.
Quote:Original post by smr What's your view on this, LessBread?
I think crush videos are obscene.
So do I, but would you ban them? Surely they should be going after the sick bastards who made these videos?
That question could also be applied to pedophile videos. And SFIK they are banned... To me there is no difference between abusing a child and torturing an animal to death.
