Supreme Court rejects animal cruelty law, upholds free speech

[Anti Federalist]

Now we'll find out where you fans really stand.



Supreme Court rejects animal cruelty law, upholds free speech

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a 1999 federal law that criminalized depictions of animal cruelty such as dogfighting videos.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0420/Supreme-Court-rejects-animal-cruelty-law-upholds-free-speech

By Warren Richey, Staff writer / April 20, 2010
Washington

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a federal law that criminalized photographs and other depictions of animal cruelty, saying the law violated free speech rights protected by the First Amendment.

In an 8 to 1 ruling, the high court said the law was substantially overbroad and thus could not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, criticized the Obama administration for proposing to the high court a balancing test that would pit the “value” of any speech against its “societal costs.”

“As a free-floating test for First Amendment coverage, that sentence is startling and dangerous,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.

“The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social cost and benefits,” he said. “The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh the costs.”

In a lone dissent, Justice Samuel Alito said instead of overturning the entire law the justices should have sent the case back to the lower courts to decide if the statute had been applied in an unconstitutional manner.

At issue in US v. Stevens was whether Congress overstepped its authority when it passed a 1999 law barring the creation, sale, or possession of any depiction of animal cruelty with the intent to distribute and sell it.

The law was initially aimed at blocking a small but growing market in underground sexual fetish videos that involve dominatrix women who step on and kill small animals. By one estimate in 1999 these so-called “crush videos” represented a million-dollar market.

But Congress did not stop there. Lawmakers decided to criminalize a wider range of conduct. The law was written to ban photographs and videos depicting “animal cruelty” in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed.

The law applied if the underlying conduct violated federal or state law where the “creation, sale, or possession takes place.” Violators would face up to five years in prison.

Roberts said the statute created a criminal prohibition of “alarming breadth.”

“A depiction of entirely lawful conduct runs afoul of the ban if that depiction later finds its way into another state where the same conduct is unlawful,” he said.

He noted that since hunting is illegal in Washington, D.C., the law would extend to “any magazine or video depicting lawful hunting, so long as that depiction is sold within the nation’s capital.”

Roberts rejected pledges by the government that federal prosecutors would only enforce the statute against acts of what it viewed as “extreme cruelty.”

“The First Amendment protects against the government; it does not leave us at the mercy of noblesse oblige,” Roberts wrote. “We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the government promised to use it reasonably.”

[amy31416]

I think people who raise and breed dogs to fight are scumsucking bastards, but I'm happy with the ruling.

[dannno]

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, criticized the Obama administration for proposing to the high court a balancing test that would pit the “value” of any speech against its “societal costs.”

Constitutional scholar my ASS! :mad:

[low preference guy]

John Roberts should resign.

Republicans should call him on.

[emazur]

The law was written to ban photographs and videos depicting “animal cruelty” in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed.

But we should be able to intentionally maim, mutilate, and torture as many animals as want!!! And why not spread the joy to others with films and photos?
/s

[Pete_00]

I always say that the "Ministry of Common Sense" is a government sector that no society should live without. Besides, it costs nothing to the tax payer and it doesnt even need a building to operate.

People that are cruel to animals need to be in prision doing forced labour in a very hot and sunny desert.

Like those prison movies, where the forced labour prisioner is going to have a cup of water and the badass shotgun-wielding guard with the badass highly-reflective aviator sunglasses suddently and "accidentally" trips on the cup of water and says "Oooops silly me, too bad there isnt any more water around, you can have a cup of water when we get back, now get back to work BOOOY!" :cool:

Ministry of Common Sense: it makes society work and its cost free.

[low preference guy]

I always say that the "Ministry of Common Sense" is a government sector that no society should live without. Besides, it costs nothing to the tax payer and it doesnt even need a building to operate.

People that are cruel to animals need to be in prision doing forced labour in a very hot and sunny desert.

Like those prison movies, where the forced labour prisioner is going to have a cup of water and the badass shotgun-wielding guard with the badass highly-reflective aviator sunglasses suddently and "accidentally" trips on the cup of water and says "Oooops silly me, too bad there isnt any more water around, you can have a cup of water when we get back, now get back to work BOOOY!" :cool:
In summary, everyone who eats meat should be enslaved.

Yet another insane post by Pete.



Ministry of Common Sense: it makes society work and its cost free.
Pete_00: Obvious troll.

[Pete_00]

In summary, everyone who eats meat should be enslaved.

Yet another insane post by Pete.


Pete_00: Obvious troll.

Your definition of "being cruel to animals" is just as twisted as your definition of "insane"...BOOOY!

[forsmant]

Should we allow people to sell video of a man being murdered?

[low preference guy]

Your definition of "being cruel to animals" is just as twisted as your definition of "insane"...BOOOY!

Right. Eating somebody is not cruel to that being.

[Inflation]

Ban them at the state, county, and/or municipal level.

No need to make a federal offense out of it.

I wonder if this will affect Max Hardcore, who is in jail for selling tapes of similarly offensive and obscene, but mutually consensual, nastiness?

[forsmant]

THis was a state law.

[Anti Federalist]

THis was a state law.

???


At issue in US v. Stevens was whether Congress overstepped its authority when it passed a 1999 law barring the creation, sale, or possession of any depiction of animal cruelty with the intent to distribute and sell it

[forsmant]

my bad

[Pete_00]

Who gives a quarter of a baboon´s arse about minor details?!? People that put animals thru UNNECESSARY physical and/or psychological pain deserve swift and hard punishment!

What the f*ck is wrong with you people??? :confused:

[forsmant]

What I was getting at is that the supreme court has ruled on several constitutional amendments which made them apply to the states. That means the states cannot ban this type of behavior either. If all the amendments to the constitution apply to the states then why have state governments at all?

[low preference guy]

Who gives a quarter of a baboon´s arse about minor details?!? People that put animals thru UNNECESSARY physical and/or psychological pain deserve swift and hard punishment!

What the f*ck is wrong with you people??? :confused:

animals don't have rights.

also, suppose someone develops a new method of killing animals that makes them suffer less. what if implementing that method will increase the price of meat 10 times? if the producers don't use it, it will certainly be unnecessary suffering, because they can buy that really expensive technology that makes animals suffer less. should the producers receive "swift and hard punishment"?

[pcosmar]

Emotional issues are great for getting people to forgo logical thought.

:(

[low preference guy]

Emotional issues are great for getting people to forgo logical thought.

:(

yeah, "supporters of liberty" become pretty authoritarian when they want to use violence against the population to take money from them so that animals are killed in a nicer way.

but your statement doesn't apply to pete_00, he doesn't seem to ever have rational thoughts. today he is proposing slave labor for people who abuse animals while yesterday he was cheerleading for muslims to blow up south park creators because one of them is jewish.

he really is more of an animal, than a person, so his position on this thread is not really surprising.

[Anti Federalist]

Emotional issues are great for getting people to forgo logical thought.

:(

Precisely why I posted this.

[Anti Federalist]

Who gives a quarter of a baboon´s arse about minor details?!? People that put animals thru UNNECESSARY physical and/or psychological pain deserve swift and hard punishment!



Not according the SCOTUS.

Or at least people who watch such things do not or will not receive harsh punishment.

[Pete_00]

animals don't have rights.

also, suppose someone develops a new method of killing animals that makes them suffer less. what if implementing that method will increase the price of meat 10 times? if the producers don't use it, it will certainly be unnecessary suffering, because they can buy that really expensive technology that makes animals suffer less. should the producers receive "swift and hard punishment"?


Some people here "intellectualize" too much...gezzzz...where is the "Ministry of Common Sense"? Lost in the sea of intellectual mumbo-jumbo? Some people think too much, Jesus Christ...

[low preference guy]

Some people here "intellectualize" too much...gezzzz...where is the "Ministry of Common Sense"? Lost in the sea of intellectual mumbo-jumbo? Some people think too much, Jesus Christ...

it seems like once it's clear that the implications of your idea are ridiculous, you want to stop the discussion as soon as possible.

it's a very real scenario:

what if there is a trade off between spending more money and making animals suffer?

should it be illegal to choose spending less money?

[driege]

John Roberts should resign.

Republicans should call him on.

Why should Roberts resign? I'm confused. He decided on the side of liberty and against the crazy "animals have rights" people.

[low preference guy]

Why should Roberts resign? I'm confused. He decided on the side of liberty and against the crazy "animals have rights" people.

I was confused!

[Pete_00]

it seems like once it's clear that the implications of your idea are ridiculous, you want to stop the discussion as soon as possible.

it's a very real scenario:

what if there is a trade off between spending more money and making animals suffer?

should it be illegal to choose spending less money?

Let the "Ministry of Common Sense" find the right balance between the cost and the issue of being humane towards the animal, it can do miracles that Ministry, it can provide quick, easy and correct answers to every issue facing society, it can make any society strong, decent and humane in a simple easy way. The "Ministry of Intellectuality" fucks up 99% of the time.

What i do know for sure is, that after consulting the Ministry of Common Sense, i became fully convinced that people that think videos of dominatrix women crushing small animals should be around are the weak links of society and i dont want them anywhere near me or my family.

Lets say, there are 100 Bald Eagles in the entire Planet and 1 guy wants to hunt them:

The "Ministry of Intellectuality" says: "He should be allowed to do it because preventing him from doing it would be coercion of the collective or government over the individual and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.........."

The "Ministry of Common Sense" says: "What an imbecile, throw his sorry ass in jail"

You see? "Ministry of Common Sense" does things quick and easy.

[low preference guy]

"Ministry of common sense" is just whatever Pete wants.

My common sense tells me that no violence should be used to get money from innocent people, just to make sure animals are killed in a nicer way. Without doing that, there are no resources to enforce that stupid rule.

Your "Ministry of common sense" is just used to justify whatever authoritarian measure you want. It's like the kings justifying they should rule because "God wanted them to".

[low preference guy]

Let the "Ministry of Common Sense" find the right balance between the cost and the issue of being humane towards the animal.

Which is another way of saying that you don't know how to answer the question, because you don't know the implications of your own proposal.

[TinCanToNA]

Emotional issues are great for getting people to forgo logical thought.

:(Good post.

I wonder if my right to free speech will allow me to go to some random crush dominatrix' son's funeral and scream, "GOD HATES ****" and spread an ideology based on the execution of homosexuals... Wonder if I can go to any random crush dominatrix' house and stand on PUBLIC PROPERTY and scream anything I want, 24/7...

The first is Constitutional and legal, while the second is not, at present.

[james1906]

The scumbag who lives behind me shot my dog on my property 2 weeks ago for barking. A 30 lb dog behind an 8 ft fence. Needless to say, I'm pretty emotional about this issue. Scumbag is being charged with a misdemeanor and has his arraignment next month.

Should he be charged with a crime? Of course. Most people think I should shoot the fucker. However, I believe this is a law on the local level. Not the federal govt jurisdiction to regulate this unless it involves importing or exporting the videos. I think every state should outlaw these disgusting videos, but it's not for Congress to decide.

[teacherone]

animals don't have rights.

children don't have rights--

declaritive statement made with as much evidence as the above poster provided.

prove it wrong and you get a piece of candy in that white van over there...;)

[Daamien]

Distributing a video or magazine doesn't violate anyone's rights, even the animals who suffered. I am happy with this SCOTUS ruling. Although I am opposed to censorship, it should be the state governments that decide how to regulate this material, not the federal government.

[Pete_00]

Distributing a video or magazine doesn't violate anyone's rights, even the animals who suffered. I am happy with this SCOTUS ruling. Although I am opposed to censorship, it should be the state governments that decide how to regulate this material, not the federal government.

No censorship for videos of dogs being slowly and painfully tortured to death?

No censorship for videos of man walking around naked around schools?

I think that for many this becomes a intellectualoid fight to see who is the most "hardcore" of them all.

But making the states regulate this material would be good, no state would want to be known as the "state of the morons".

[TigerPrwn]

I don't understand the need for more laws. Don't we already have laws against taking one's property or destroying one's property? Do not animals constitute one's property if the land owner paid for, or boards them? What's all this "chipping" about?

[TigerPrwn]

Good post.

I wonder if my right to free speech will allow me to go to some random crush dominatrix' son's funeral and scream, "GOD HATES ****" and spread an ideology based on the execution of homosexuals... Wonder if I can go to any random crush dominatrix' house and stand on PUBLIC PROPERTY and scream anything I want, 24/7...

The first is Constitutional and legal, while the second is not, at present.

there are laws against murdering homosexuals, just like there are laws against murdering heterosexuals, only if you commit murder, chances are, you will end up in jail much longer, or put to death more quickly if you murder a homosexual as opposed to a heterosexual.
Punishment of hate crimes is all about handing out hate, and btw, I thought ALL crimes derived from some sort of HATE...

"Hate speech" is no different.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Ministry of common sense decided Pete and all of his like minded buddies need to start killing their own animals to eat since animals have rights. Eating at McDonald's has been criminalized and codified as aiding and abetting animal cruelty for killing an animal.

Soon to be outlawed video by the Ministry of common sense:
YouTube - slaughter house (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC5H2avOoV0)

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

YouTube - Food Industry - Chicken and Cow Slaughterhouse (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfFr6TNMds8)

[TinCanToNA]

there are laws against murdering homosexuals, just like there are laws against murdering heterosexuals, only if you commit murder, chances are, you will end up in jail much longer, or put to death more quickly if you murder a homosexual as opposed to a heterosexual.
Punishment of hate crimes is all about handing out hate, and btw, I thought ALL crimes derived from some sort of HATE...

"Hate speech" is no different.

The Westboro Baptist Church advocates the execution of homosexuals (via making homosexuality illegal and a capital offense). They go to funerals of service members who died in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to spread this ideology. It's currently legal and protected free speech.

[Pete_00]

Ministry of common sense decided Pete and all of his like minded buddies need to start killing their own animals to eat since animals have rights. Eating at McDonald's has been criminalized and codified as aiding and abetting animal cruelty for killing an animal.

Soon to be outlawed video by the Ministry of common sense:
YouTube - slaughter house (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC5H2avOoV0)

What a stupid argument. You assume that im some kind of PETA hippie or that i get bothered by watching a rabbit or any other animal being shoot by a hunter...

All that im saying is that people that think there should be no laws to censor videos of (for example) dogs being slowly and painfully tortured to death or laws to punish people that do such things are freaking nutcases. The Ministry of Common Sense at work here.

[NYgs23]

Animal cruelty makes me nauseous, but I cannot be consistently logical if I am to claim that animals have legal rights vis a vis humans. I don't think they do because it's not in their nature. While I would spurn and detest an animal abuser, I would not be able to use violence against him while still being consistent with my interpretation of natural law.