Quantcast

alito == most liberal SC judge on bench

$tinkle

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
Justices overturn law that bans animal-torture videos, photos
The Supreme Court struck down on free-speech grounds Tuesday a federal law that makes it a crime to sell videos or photos of animals being illegally killed or tortured.

In a 8-1 ruling, the justices overturned the conviction of a Virginia man who sold dog-fighting videos.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., speaking for the court, said the First Amendment does not allow the government to criminalize whole categories of speech and expression that are deemed undesirable.

Roberts also said the law was too broad and could allow prosecutions for selling photos of out-of-season hunting, for example.

Only Justice Samuel Alito dissented.
Click to expand...
 
sanjuro

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,373
0
SF
henrymiller said:
How does that dissent make him liberal? Did you even read the dissenting opinion?
Click to expand...
Only Justice Samuel A. Alito dissented from Tuesday's decision. He faulted the court for striking down "in its entirety a valuable statute that was enacted not to suppress speech, but to prevent horrific acts of animal cruelty — and in particular, the creation and commercial exploitation of ‘crush videos,' a form of depraved entertainment that has no social value."
 
henrymiller

henrymiller

Monkey
May 4, 2002
290
0
Denver-A-Go-Go
sanjuro said:
Only Justice Samuel A. Alito dissented from Tuesday's decision. He faulted the court for striking down "in its entirety a valuable statute that was enacted not to suppress speech, but to prevent horrific acts of animal cruelty — and in particular, the creation and commercial exploitation of ‘crush videos,' a form of depraved entertainment that has no social value."
Click to expand...
"Instead of applying the doctrine of overbreadth, I would vacate the decision below and instruct the Court of Ap-peals on remand to decide whether the videos that respon-dent sold are constitutionally protected."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf
 
$tinkle

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
Westy said:
The foot tapping isn't working for you anymore?
Click to expand...
i have yet to be so bored in my current fetishes as to fall into tapping feet. drew pinksy says aquasocks are the gateway apparel, though, so i'll check myself
 
dante

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,807
9
looking for classic NE singletrack
So let me get this straight:

Animal cruelty is illegal, but videos depicting it allowed under the 1st amendment.
Sex with a minor is illegal, but pictures or videos depicting it are also illegal, even if they're cartoons, anime or hand-drawn characters............

WTF, SCOTUS?
 
$tinkle

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
and fishing videos, if peta really wanted to play hardball.

would this also translate to terrorist-winning fast food commercials? seems just as likely.
 
BurlyShirley

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
rockofullr said:
I heard that they were worried this law could make selling hunting videos illegal.

Retarded huh?
Click to expand...

Have you thought this issue through?

What about a documentary showing animal cruelty at slaughter houses... to further the animal rights cause?

What about those Animal Cops shows on Animal Planet where an animal is being abused and the cops have to step in?
 
syadasti

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,690
290
VT
BurlyShirley said:
What about those Animal Cops shows on Animal Planet where an animal is being abused and the cops have to step in?
Click to expand...
Court of laws, LEOs, etc will still view footage that isn't allowed on primetime or TV period as they have been, it won't hinder the prosecution of law breakers especially if they have it on tape :confused:

Most reality TV sucks anyways.
 
Last edited:
BurlyShirley

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
syadasti said:
Court of laws, LEOs, etc will still view footage that isn't allowed on primetime or TV period as they have been, it won't hinder the prosecution of law breakers especially if they have it on tape :confused:

Most reality TV sucks anyways.
Click to expand...
Half-addressing one of the two points I made was worth a post?

Does it not register that sometimes people have to actually visualize an atrocity before they'll take action to correct it? Public sentiment isn't worth anything? How many people have donated to 'Feed the Children' only after seeing some skinny african kid with flies landing on his eyeballs?

How about just creating legislation that makes sense? Target the crunch porn, and don't make laws with obvious repercussions beyond the original problem at hand. It's really that simple.
 
MikeD

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,737
1,820
chez moi
dante said:
So let me get this straight:

Animal cruelty is illegal, but videos depicting it allowed under the 1st amendment.
Sex with a minor is illegal, but pictures or videos depicting it are also illegal, even if they're cartoons, anime or hand-drawn characters............

WTF, SCOTUS?
Click to expand...

I thought SCOTUS struck down a lower court ruling that fiction or fictitious images of illegal sex acts were also illegal, on the same grounds of free speech and no one being actually victimized or exploited?
 
MikeD

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,737
1,820
chez moi
Hm, the case I was recalling is much older, decided Apr 16 2002. Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition.

Held: The prohibitions of §§2256(8)(B) and 2256(8)(D) are overbroad and unconstitutional

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=00-795

My own opinion? Much like the court's in this case.


Ed: Hmmm, it's the Protect act again. Interesting. Dealt with it before but never vis-a-vis pornography.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom