It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
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.
Originally posted by Jenna
You can film animals being harmed all day long and it's freedom of speech. Really??
Originally posted by TrueBrit
So , it would be illegal to do a documentary about rascism, illegal dumping of toxic waste, dogfighting, cockfighting, prostitution, government corruption just because SHOWING the grimey reality of life is illegal?
Originally posted by Jenna
If someone's taping an animal getting treated cruelly and does nothing to stop it, they are just as responsible as the one who does it.
Originally posted by Jenna
Obviously sneaking a camera in somewhere to get proof of animal cruelty to get it stopped is a far sight different than standing around taping small animals getting stepped on or taping dog fights. The latter is in no way a form of creativity, it's just the result of a sick mind and shouldn't be protected by free speech.
Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Maybe morally but not legally
that's another topic
Ya but how do you draw the line?
Bureaucracy doesn't make it as simple as you put it.
So how do you draw the line?
Forget morally, how do you do it legally?
Originally posted by Jenna
What kind of twisted logic takes you from cruelty to animals is bad to filming cruelty to animals is ok? What's the difference? news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
Chief Justice John Roberts bore in on those exemptions as evidence that prosecutions would depend on the views of the speaker.
How can you tell these aren't political videos, he asked? You have organizations like PETA that use these videos to generate support for their efforts to ban certain conduct. Why, he asked, couldn't Mr. Stevens' videos be seen as an effort to legalize the same conduct?
Justice Sotomayor: What's the difference between this video and David Roma's documentary expose about pit bulls and dogfighting? That footage, she observed, was far more gruesome.
Answer: The line will sometimes be difficult to draw, just as it is in child pornography.
Justice Scalia: Child pornography is obscenity as far as I'm concerned, traditionally not covered by the First Amendment. This is something quite different. What if I'm an aficionado of bullfights? And I think they ennoble both beast and man. And I want to persuade people that we should have them? I would not be able to market videos showing people how exciting a bullfight is.
Answer: Congress, in debating this law, talked about Spanish bullfighting as educational and artistic.
Scalia, his voice rising, wait, wait, wait, any depiction of bullfighting is educational?
Answer: Spanish bullfighting.
Justice Breyer: Look what you've done. You've taken these words, which are a little vague - serious educational, scientific, artistic. And you apply them not just to crush videos but to everything from dogfighting to fox hunting, to stuffing geese for pate de foie gras, and sometimes quail hunting. In some states, these things are legal, and in others they're not and people won't know what's legal and illegal.
Justice Ginsburg: What's the difference between dogfighting and bullfighting, and I don't know where you put cockfighting.
Justices Kennedy and Stevens asked about hunting with a bow and arrow noting that some depictions can be pretty gory.
The government's Mr. Katyal replied that since hunting is legal in all 50 states, it's not covered by the law.
But he conceded that a hunting video could be illegal to the extent it portrays an animal being, quote, "maimed, tortured, wounded or killed."
Killed, Justice Scalia all but shouted, how do you limit kill to cruel? Kill has one meaning which is to kill.
Answer: Here, "kill" is in the context of animal cruelty.
Justice Scalia: Some people think killing an animal is cruel.
Justice Alito: Could you ban a live broadcast of a gladiator contest like they had in ancient Rome.
Answer: That would fall under the historical exemption of the law.
Justice Scalia, incredulous: So, if you dress up like an ancient Roman, the whole thing is of historical interest?
Again, Mr. Katyal responded that this sort of line drawing is no different than in child pornography cases.
Justice Ginsberg: What I'd like you to confront is that in child pornography cases, the very taking of the picture is the abuse of the child. Whereas here, Mr. Stevens was not even a promoter of the dogfight and the fight goes on whether he's there with a camera or not.
Representing Mr. Stevens in court today, lawyer Patricia Mallet had an easier time of it, but not a cakewalk.
Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito asked whether the court should worry about real-world problems instead of all the hypotheticals being bandied about.
Lawyer Mallet replied that under the First Amendment, Congress is required to write with a scalpel and not a buzzsaw. And this law, she said, is a buzzsaw.
Justice Alito: Well, what about people who like human sacrifice? Suppose that's taking place someplace in the world. I mean, some people here would probably love to see it - live, pay per view, on the human sacrifice channel. Could Congress ban that?
When Mallet dodged the question, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy pressed for an answer. Finally she said, no. If Congress's only purpose is to shield your eyes for you, it can't do that.