Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-20-2010, 08:10 AM   #1
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Nice... real nice SCOTUS

Supreme Court strikes down animal cruelty law | Reuters
By an 8-1 vote, the court struck down the 1999 animal cruelty law for infringing on free-speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Congress adopted the law in an attempt to stop people from profiting by the interstate sale of depictions of torture and killing of animals. It was mainly aimed at "crush"
videos in which women in high-heeled shoes step on small animals as a type of sexual fetish.
The ruling was a victory for Robert Stevens of Virginia, who made and sold three videos of pit bulls fighting each other and attacking hogs and wild boars.
His 2005 conviction was the first in the country under the law. Stevens was sentenced to 37 months in prison, but he has yet to start his sentence while his case
was on appeal.
Attorneys for Stevens said his sentence was 14 months longer than professional football player Michael Vick's prison term for running a dog-fighting ring. Vick has served
his sentence and has resumed his career.
Laws in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, along with various other federal laws, already ban animal cruelty.
U.S. Justice Department lawyers had argued animal cruelty videos should be treated like child pornography, not entitled to any constitutional protection. Usually,
videos and other depictions are protected as free speech, even if they show abhorrent conduct.
Only Justice Samuel Alito dissented. He said the law could be validly applied to at least two broad categories of expression -- "crush" videos and dog-fighting videos.

The Supreme Court case is United States v. Stevens, No. 08-769.

04-20-2010, 08:25 AM   #2
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,798
I think that banning that sort of thing, as distasteful and vile as it is, starts us down a slippery slope of censorship both in private and in the media. Planes dropping bombs that just have to be killing innocent civilians could conceivably be banned from the news under the same reasoning. Security camera video of the robbery of a of a local Quickie-Mart may be banned as some viewing it may decide they would like to try it or they may learn from it how to be more successful. On the surface their ruling seems ridiculous but The Law of Unintended Consequences always needs to be considered.
04-20-2010, 08:33 AM   #3
Pentaxian
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,822
I can see Jim's point. I haven't read the decision, but I do see some difficulty here distinguishing the principles in child pornography cases from other photos of other utterly horrendous acts. It puts the court in a tricky position saying what is and what is not so horrible that it has no protection. It may simply be that this law was poorly worded and overbroad.
04-20-2010, 08:51 AM   #4
Veteran Member
MRRiley's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sterling, VA, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,274
Jeff,

Please read and reply to the PM I sent you an hour and a half before you posted this thread.

NO MORE EXCESSIVE BOLD TYPEFACE. Please learn to use QUOTE or INDENT!

Mike


Last edited by MRRiley; 04-20-2010 at 09:06 AM.
04-20-2010, 09:07 AM   #5
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
I think that banning that sort of thing, as distasteful and vile as it is, starts us down a slippery slope of censorship both in private and in the media. Planes dropping bombs that just have to be killing innocent civilians could conceivably be banned from the news under the same reasoning. Security camera video of the robbery of a of a local Quickie-Mart may be banned as some viewing it may decide they would like to try it or they may learn from it how to be more successful. On the surface their ruling seems ridiculous but The Law of Unintended Consequences always needs to be considered.
It's 11 years old for gosh sakes.. anyone screaming about it till now?
04-20-2010, 09:18 AM   #6
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,798
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
It's 11 years old for gosh sakes.. anyone screaming about it till now?
The wheels of justice do turn slowly, don't they?
04-20-2010, 09:23 AM   #7
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
The wheels of justice do turn slowly, don't they?
Seems it's intent was well understood and for someone to now profit on dog fight videos seems stretching freedom to it's limits.. reverse logic whats next... bring back snuff films?
Problem lies in that some wanton killing of animals is OK. Some consider it inhuman and way below any protected right.. period... I prefer to see an execution then someone just crushing an animal.. just me though.
People have choices, animals don't......
Sorry let my disgust get the best of me.....
Neither is civilized...........
04-20-2010, 09:42 AM   #8
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,798
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
Seems it's intent was well understood and for someone to now profit on dog fight videos seems stretching freedom to it's limits.. reverse logic whats next... bring back snuff films?
Problem lies in that some wanton killing of animals is OK. Some consider it inhuman and way below any protected right.. period... I prefer to see an execution then someone just crushing an animal.. just me though.
People have choices, animals don't......
Sorry let my disgust get the best of me.....
Neither is civilized...........
Jeff, I agree with absolutely everything you just said. I would rather french kiss Hillary Clinton than shake the hand of a child abuser or animal abuser.
Determining which acts should and shouldn't be allowed is pretty easy.
The problem is determining, with regard to media, where to draw the line and when or if that line should ever be moved.

04-20-2010, 09:59 AM   #9
Site Supporter
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Site Supporter
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,123
The Supremes are a bunch of old worthless "Arsitocrats" making decisions that are largely out of touch with reality in modern America. They seem to consider themselves maybe just one step above God, and since they answer to no one, who can dispute it?

I'm surprised the sick bastards were willing to ban Child Pornography, if they don't have any regard for animals they sure as hell don't convince me they give a damn about children. Worthless pigs, I would vote to eliminate the whole bunch of them and replace them with a set of the mentally challenged........the results couldn't be any worse, and those that are a little "slow" generally love childern and animals.....and their fellow man, even if their fellow man is not a Fat Cat with a big bankroll of stolen cash...stolen from taxpayers.
Regards
04-20-2010, 10:05 AM   #10
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: La Crescenta, CA
Posts: 7,454
Slippery slope! Slippery slope!

IMO, there's a difference between reportage (video of bombs dropping in war) and some yokel throwing a cat against a wall and selling the video on the internet. Pretty ridiculous decision.

edit: I mean, wtf:

QuoteQuote:
But [Chief Justice Roberts] rejected the government’s analogy to a more recent category of unprotected speech, that of trafficking in child pornography, which the court in 1982 said deserved no First Amendment protection.

Child pornography, he said, is “a special case” because the market for it is “intrinsically related to the underlying abuse.”
Animal abuse isn't?

Last edited by deadwolfbones; 04-20-2010 at 10:18 AM.
04-20-2010, 11:01 AM   #11
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,798
QuoteOriginally posted by deadwolfbones Quote
Slippery slope! Slippery slope!

IMO, there's a difference between reportage (video of bombs dropping in war) and some yokel throwing a cat against a wall and selling the video on the internet.
There certainly is a difference. I'm sure though that you have heard the saying "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step"; well, the erosion of rights progresses much the same way.
The abuse is already a crime. The fact that it happens suggests to me that the penalties aren't sufficiently stiff to be an effective deterrent.
04-20-2010, 12:09 PM   #12
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,552
Well, laws against cruelty to animals *did* in fact predate laws against child and spouse abuse.

I don't like to buy into 'slippery slope' arguments, cause they can frankly be made to say *anything,* and aren't necessarily about the text of laws..

But it's pretty disturbing, especially as, guess what, the Religious Right is claiming Obama's Supreme Court nominee is a lesbian who couldn't possibly-be-objective while comparing lesbian Americans to animals... then apparently lauding the notion selling animal abuse is OK...

Whatever the legal statutes may actually say about this case, it's actually troubling, what it's taken to *mean.*
04-20-2010, 12:11 PM   #13
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Original Poster
The dissenting voice

I need more info....
QuoteQuote:
Justice Samuel Alito said the harm animals suffer in dogfights is enough to sustain the law. Alito said that the ruling will probably spur new crush videos because, in his words, it has "the practical effects of legalizing the sale of such videos."

The ruling threw out the the criminal conviction of Robert Stevens who was sentenced to three years in prison for videos he made about pit bull fights.

Animal Rights Groups Disagree

Animal rights groups along with the Obama administration and 26 states, supported the 1995 law and sought a ruling that treated the videos showing animal cruelty like child pornography , not entitled to constitutional protection.
Animal videos showing violence approved by Supreme Court
I'm half on your side parralax but you know, I just can't get over my moral hump..... It is pretty obvous we make "exceptions" and I for one am still for it here....
04-20-2010, 12:29 PM   #14
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,798
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
......................
I'm half on your side parralax but you know, I just can't get over my moral hump.....
The hump about the ruling or the one about agreeing with me?
04-20-2010, 12:38 PM   #15
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,552
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
The hump about the ruling or the one about agreeing with me?
Your name is Jim and you like to argue. One should always beware of agreeing with you.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
court, justice, law, laws, prison, sentence, stevens, videos
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Streets how much nice is it? Gooshin Post Your Photos! 0 10-05-2009 07:10 AM
... so that was nice... Vormulac Photographic Technique 0 03-31-2009 03:29 AM
It's been real nice knowing you guys... G_Money Pentax DSLR Discussion 38 08-15-2008 09:51 AM
Are these nice to others, or just me? Griza Photo Critique 7 02-01-2008 05:03 AM
nice to be here ;) nanok Welcomes and Introductions 1 09-23-2007 07:40 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:07 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top