Supreme Court strikes down law banning dogfight videos

[Caitlin.ann]

The Supreme Court has struck down a federal law designed to stop the sale and marketing of videos showing dogfights and other acts of animal cruelty, saying it is an unconstitutional violation of free speech.

Link (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/20/supreme-court-strikes-down-law-banning-dogfight-videos/?hpt=T2)

[aluokaloo]

what? that doesn't even make any sense. the supreme court must be full of...something i can't say cause it would get me banned. idiots. morons. buttholes!

[Toriach]

Link (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/20/supreme-court-strikes-down-law-banning-dogfight-videos/?hpt=T2)

Sadly this is the legacy left to us by our Government, starting with most recently with Reagan.

The voiceless are left with even less of a voice than they had to begin with. A system that is weighted to favor those who have power becomes more heavily weighted in their favor.

And the voiceless are told to quiet down lest they be handed even worse.

I'd like to say I'm surprised but after the decision upholding Corporate speech rights I don't think my expectations of this Supreme Court.

[TuathaSidhe]

The problem is that the law was to vague. The verdict is that law banning videos of "animal cruelty" not limited to dog fighting was unconstitutional.

Under that law it would include anything that someone "might" see as animal cruelty. In the same way that taking a picture of your baby in their first bath is considered "child porn"

The point is to continue to use the laws already in place, (which do include videos) not a new law that would have potential to do harm to someone else where because its to vague.

[Toriach]

The problem is that the law was to vague. The verdict is that law banning videos of "animal cruelty" not limited to dog fighting was unconstitutional.

Under that law it would include anything that someone "might" see as animal cruelty. In the same way that taking a picture of your baby in their first bath is considered "child porn"

The point is to continue to use the laws already in place, (which do include videos) not a new law that would have potential to do harm to someone else where because its to vague.

My understanding is that the law originally was created to deal with videos of women in various foot wear stomping small animals to death. So if that is the case it would have been extending the law to dog fighting videos.

[TuathaSidhe]

I'll have to look it up, dont have stuff with me at the moment and pressed for time, but it was to include animal cruelty..not limited to dog fighting.

As it was, it was to vague and could include anything that someone "might" think is animal cruelty. Which, if PeTa had there way would be ALOT of things, including but not limited to videos of dog training, competitions or anything that shows fi fi as a "slave". Also would include hunting, fishing..etc etc.

The point was to go after someone with videos of animal cruelty under current animal cruelty laws...not make a law that makes a videos that "might" be animal cruelty.

As it stands, (ETA: most videos that have proof of the person being prosecuted. Not third or fourth party I believe. Time got away had to get the kids and didnt make myself to clear here, lol) dog fighting videos and women stomping on small dogs killing them can in most places already be used as evidence of animal cruelty.