Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's right. My point is, this has done nothing positive. There is no good done to anybody by this ruling except for a bunch of sickos who get off on being cruel to animals. Do you have a pet?
if you drop a dog by accident and catch it on film, do you want to be banned from owning pets by PETA?
the supreme court creates laws to protect our rights. no ones rights are violated in the filming of animal cruelty.
if you call for animal rights then i will poor red paint on your leather jacket.
That's right. My point is, this has done nothing positive. There is no good done to anybody by this ruling except for a bunch of sickos who get off on being cruel to animals. Do you have a pet?
Whether I have a pet or not has nothing to do with the First Amendment, and that's what was upheld by the Supreme Court today.
If you believe in free speech, then this ruling did a lot of good.
Quote:
I was being sarcastic and dissing the SCOTUS. They ruled in favor of people who abuse animals for fun, but would likely rule against gay marriage.
One has nothing to do with the other, and they didn't rule in favor of "people who abuse animals for fun". They ruled in favor of the freedom to capture something on video, even if it's considered distasteful or controversial by the majority.
if there are laws against specific behaviors, then people shouldn't be allowed to film or show it and get away with it.
Yes, they should. There's a big difference between committing a crime and filming that crime.
If I see someone committing a crime and I have my cell phone camera with me, you can bet I'm going to take pictures. You seem to be suggesting that should be illegal. That would be outrageous.
Yes, they should. There's a big difference between committing a crime and filming that crime.
If I see someone committing a crime and I have my cell phone camera with me, you can bet I'm going to take pictures. You seem to be suggesting that should be illegal. That would be outrageous.
Do you think that child pornography should be legal? Why or why not?
Do you think that child pornography should be legal? Why or why not?
Forcing kids to have sex? Absolutely, that should be illegal. The legality of filming it would probably depend on the situation. Again, I don't believe that merely filming a criminal act should be illegal, and judging by today's ruling, I think the Supreme Court would agree with me.
Forcing kids to have sex? Absolutely, that should be illegal. The legality of filming it would probably depend on the situation. Again, I don't believe that merely filming a criminal act should be illegal, and judging by today's ruling, I think the Supreme Court would agree with me.
This might have someone questioning if the possession of child pornography should also be legal.
If you are filming a criminal act either for profit or personnal pleasure does that not make you part of the crime? Couldnt that be considered aiding a crime?
There is or should be a difference whether someone catches a crime on their cell phone or is actually a part of the crime.
I'm all for free speech, etc but, I also think we should hold people accountable for their actions .
So, who do you inform people of a need to outlaw dog fighting without showing how despicable dog fighting is? Is that not the role of the press? As for the argument about people who cut off the heads of captives and then broadcast them, did we not draw a distinction between those who did the cutting and those who did the broadcasting? Is it the governments role to determine what is appropriate to be shown or is that the role of a free press?
that isn't the role of the press, which is to report the news and inform the public. i see no problem reporting dog fighting, but i see no need to show dog fighting.
to flip that around, when the media reports on child pornography, is it obligated to show child pornography to make their point that it is bad? i think not.
as far as head lopping, i don't think that was necessary to show either really. i don't know that as a society we need to be de-conditioned from violence. furthermore, the people who commit that kind of horrific violence WANT it shown and we shouldn't give them that kind of attention. in my mind, it would be enough for media to report what they did and then the progress on getting those people apprehended and punished for their actions.
I don't think people on this board know the whole story.
This guy who got convicted (and the conviction was rightfully overturn by the US court of appeals); Well the guy filmed the animal fighting in another country where it is legal.
I know there are tons of animal rights activitists/lovers. But we need to respect laws of other countries. Same thing happened to Pedro Martinez (the future Hall of Fame pitcher for the Boston Red Sox/Mets/Phillies). He was caught on tape at a cockfight. But guess what? It was in his home country of Dominican Republican where cockfighting is legal.
So taping dog fighting/attending dog fights is legal in other countries.
We need to leave our moral judgments behind.
So the point in question is free of speech rights with the video taping. It was an easy choice for 8 out of the 9 Supreme Court Justices. I'm surprise it wasn't 9-0 decision. The law is the law.
Can you imagine if other countries put people who are over a BMI of 40 (ie really fat people). Those European countries would put a 1/3 of US Citizens in Jail. So other countries will have different moral judgments about US citizens fatness problems. Same thing with the US divorce rate.
That's why people need to separate their moral judgment vs. the real law of the land.
And that's why I think juries are complete idiots if you are truly innocent of a crime. If I were on trial, I would prefer a panel of 5 judges. If 4 of the 5 think I am guilty so be it. (obviously I don't want a 1 judge verdict). I want a 5 judge verdict with 80% of the vote going against me to convict me. That would be the fairest system of all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
