Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court struck down a federal law Tuesday aimed at banning videos that show graphic violence against animals, saying it violates the right to free speech.

The justices, voting 8-1, threw out the criminal conviction of Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Va., who was sentenced to three years in prison for videos he made about pit bull fights.

The law was enacted in 1999 to limit Internet sales of so-called crush videos, which appeal to a certain sexual fetish by showing women crushing to death small animals with their bare feet or high-heeled shoes.

The videos virtually disappeared once the measure became law, the government argued.

But Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said the law goes too far, suggesting that a measure limited to crush videos might be valid. Animal cruelty and dog fighting already are illegal throughout the country.

In dissent, Justice Samuel Alito said the harm animals suffer in dogfights is enough to sustain the law.

Alito said the ruling probably will spur new crush videos because it has "the practical effect of legalizing the sale of such videos."

Animal rights groups, including the Humane Society of the United States and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and 26 states joined the Obama administration in support of the law. The government sought a ruling that treated videos showing animal cruelty like child pornography, not entitled to constitutional protection.

But Roberts said the law could be read to allow the prosecution of the producers of films about hunting. And he scoffed at the administration's assurances that it would only apply the law to depictions of extreme cruelty. "But the First Amendment protects against the government," Roberts said. "We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the government promised to use it responsibly."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100420/ap_ ... ull_videos

Appaholic wrote:
The law was enacted in 1999 to limit Internet sales of so-called crush videos, which appeal to a certain sexual fetish by showing women crushing to death small animals with their bare feet or high-heeled shoes.

Are you fucking kidding. There are some sick POS out there.

Though I don't agree with dog fighting or any form of animal cruelty, I don't think documenting it should be a crime. It's sickening if the documentations purpose is to provide people with something they consider entertaining. I do however think, that prosecution can still go after those documented in the video. It is ridiculous that this man got a three year sentence for video taping the fight, while Vick running the dog fighting ring got less time (per the article).

JMU DJ wrote:Though I don't agree with dog fighting or any form of animal cruelty, I don't think documenting it should be a crime. It's sickening if the documentations purpose is to provide people with something they consider entertaining. I do however think, that prosecution can still go after those documented in the video. It is ridiculous that this man got a three year sentence for video taping the fight, while Vick running the dog fighting ring got less time (per the article).

I agree. However, I do not think anyone should be allowed to sell the videos. Documenting is fine....twisted, but legal. But being allowed to sell for profit the videotaping of an illegal act creates an environment where that act is given tacit approval by society. Same as selling videos of child pornography IMO.

Easy thing to do here - fix the law. The Court is pretty clear that what Congress wrote into the law was crap. Everyone recognizes that plenty of these videos can and should be disallowed, however, the Court didn't think just going with the White House's assurance that they'll be careful when applying the law was good enough. If Congress can actually put together some decent verbiage and tailor the law properly, they can ban videos like what is described above without infringing on free speech. Next time, take more time in crafting a decent law.

polsongrizz wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
The law was enacted in 1999 to limit Internet sales of so-called crush videos, which appeal to a certain sexual fetish by showing women crushing to death small animals with their bare feet or high-heeled shoes.

Are you fucking kidding. There are some sick POS out there.

Yes, there are some sick mofo's out there....

This is tough to figure, but CJ Roberts is a pretty smart guy and I would defer to him on this one.

GannonFan wrote:Easy thing to do here - fix the law. The Court is pretty clear that what Congress wrote into the law was crap. Everyone recognizes that plenty of these videos can and should be disallowed, however, the Court didn't think just going with the White House's assurance that they'll be careful when applying the law was good enough. If Congress can actually put together some decent verbiage and tailor the law properly, they can ban videos like what is described above without infringing on free speech. Next time, take more time in crafting a decent law.

Agree

89Hen wrote:This is tough to figure, but CJ Roberts is a pretty smart guy and I would defer to him on this one.

Heck, not just him - 8 of the 9 judges sided with him on this one. Congress wrote a crappy law and didn't proofread it. Like I said, next time write a better law - you can ban people making these "crush" vidoes - but you can't put out a crappy law that does that while also infringing on the free speech rights of others in other activities. You'd think with all the lawyers in Congress and on staff they could manage to draft a decently worded bill to avoid this. Just sloppy.

Appaholic wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Easy thing to do here - fix the law. The Court is pretty clear that what Congress wrote into the law was crap. Everyone recognizes that plenty of these videos can and should be disallowed, however, the Court didn't think just going with the White House's assurance that they'll be careful when applying the law was good enough. If Congress can actually put together some decent verbiage and tailor the law properly, they can ban videos like what is described above without infringing on free speech. Next time, take more time in crafting a decent law.

Agree

Oh, GF....you slay me.

[youtube][/youtube]
Animal cruelty makes for awesome endings in movies.

GannonFan wrote:Easy thing to do here - fix the law. The Court is pretty clear that what Congress wrote into the law was crap. Everyone recognizes that plenty of these videos can and should be disallowed, however, the Court didn't think just going with the White House's assurance that they'll be careful when applying the law was good enough. If Congress can actually put together some decent verbiage and tailor the law properly, they can ban videos like what is described above without infringing on free speech. Next time, take more time in crafting a decent law.

Not only that, but what if no animals were actually harmed in the making of the video because it was either animated or because the animal was inserted with CGI?