Supreme Court - Animal Cruelty Videos Protected by 1st Amendment
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.
the sad part is that we are supposed to separate morality from law, when they should be intertwined.
there are some basic things that violate our status as a higher order, and we all know they don't involve eating too much sugar, etc.
what they do involve is basic decency-DOING NO HARM, and i certainly don't want the standards of the dominican republic brought to this country via our court system......
the sad part is that we are supposed to separate morality from law, when they should be intertwined.
Whose morality?
We're talking about freedom of speech, not morality. The First Amendment is clear:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
We're talking about freedom of speech, not morality. The First Amendment is clear:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
the freedom of the press is not inhibited by not allowing the showing of snuff films, crush films, child pornography, animal cruelty, or heads getting lopped off around the world.
they can still "speak" about it all they want and inform all they want, but they don't need to become "participants" in barbarianism.
i like that our country has had higher standards of kindness and compassion than many other countries and wish that we would keep up those higher standards. allowing cruelty to try and hide behind the first amendment is not going to be acceptable to many americans.
the freedom of the press is not inhibited by not allowing the showing of snuff films, crush films, child pornography, animal cruelty, or heads getting lopped off around the world.
they can still "speak" about it all they want and inform all they want, but they don't need to become "participants" in barbarianism.
i like that our country has had higher standards of kindness and compassion than many other countries and wish that we would keep up those higher standards. allowing cruelty to try and hide behind the first amendment is not going to be acceptable to many Americans.
Everyone has their own "passions" about certain things in life. There are lots of animal rights activists. But emotions cannot override basic rights in the US Constitution; the right to free speech.
If you prevent someone from airing a legally recorded dog fight (legal in the other country), and airing in the US, than what's not to say, someone will be equally offended by National Hockey League/National Football League players hitting each other on TV. I could make an argument, I shouldn't need to be exposed to this type of violence. What's "accepted practice" to you, isn't accepted practice to someone else.
What if I told you I am truly offended by seeing a 400 pound woman eat 3 hamburgers at McDonalds last week (true story, it did happen last week). Does that woman have the right to eat what she wants.
I have many Europeans friends. They are offended at how fat Americans are. Should they make it a law to prevent Americans from eating fatty foods over there.
And you do realize US news stations do not show dead Americans on TV with the Iraq war. But the Europeans/Asian media do show dead Americans. So why aren't we up in arms with those foreign channels?
But US news stations show a lot of dead bodies of foreigners (especially with the tsunami of Asian....tons of pictures showing dead bloated bodies on US TV stations; I was completely offended by the US networks. But that's freedom in the US. And that's what makes the US the best country to live in.
Such a law only deals with the symptoms, the real problem is the sickness of the minds who make and watch that crap. Isn't our world violent enough already without such films?
ok, animal cruelty is sick, theres no question about it.
i don't believe animal cruelty videos should be legal, however the way the supreme court is looking at it is: people are free, the government is protecting free peoples rights. animals don't have rights. therefore incarcerating someone who is not violating someone elses rights is wrong.
BUT, animal cruelty is illegal, and the problem with the supreme court stating that animal cruelty videos are legal based on free speech laws means that anyone can distribute these videos and get away with it now.
I would have liked it better if they had not heard the case at all, and denied the appeal. that would have been the most effective way to not condone this course of action and leave it up to the lower courts to make the desicion.
because now anyone who distributes animal cruelty videos, their lawyer will use the supreme courts desicion to get the offender off the hook, whether the supreme court likes it or not.
the SC messed up by voicing their opinion and creating a law, rather than leaving it to the lower courts to decide on a case by case basis.
ok, animal cruelty is sick, theres no question about it.
i don't believe animal cruelty videos should be legal, however the way the supreme court is looking at it is: people are free, the government is protecting free peoples rights. animals don't have rights. therefore incarcerating someone who is not violating someone elses rights is wrong.
BUT, animal cruelty is illegal, and the problem with the supreme court stating that animal cruelty videos are legal based on free speech laws means that anyone can distribute these videos and get away with it now.
I would have liked it better if they had not heard the case at all, and denied the appeal. that would have been the most effective way to not condone this course of action and leave it up to the lower courts to make the desicion.
because now anyone who distributes animal cruelty videos, their lawyer will use the supreme courts desicion to get the offender off the hook, whether the supreme court likes it or not.
the SC messed up by voicing their opinion and creating a law, rather than leaving it to the lower courts to decide on a case by case basis.
I hope you realize if the Supreme Court did not choose to hear the case, than that means they think the US Court of Appeals was correct. People need to read the laws and the whole story. The US Court of Appeals overturned this guy's original conviction. The US Government appealed the overturning of the conviction to the Supreme Court.
Again we are not dealing with the Act of Animal Cruelty. That is illegal in the United States.
That's why I think a lot of juries hand down dumb decisions. This guy should never have been convicted in the first place. He did not compete/observe acts of Animal Cruelty in the United States. He merely is passing videos of acts of Animal Cruelty in the US. Again, completely legal in this country.
Like Michael Vick. The Feds did not convict him on animal cruelty charges (although he later made a plea deal with the State of Virginia on animal cruelty). Michael Vick plead guilty to gambling across state lines. That's what he got sent to jail for.
This case was about Freedom of Speech. Unless you disagree about freedom of speech, than the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court was correct in their rulings, no matter how offensive you think the videos are.
the freedom of the press is not inhibited by not allowing the showing of snuff films, crush films, child pornography, animal cruelty, or heads getting lopped off around the world.
Well, since snuff films, crush films, child pornography or heads getting lopped off weren't facts in the case, and the alleged animal cruelty didn't depict "illegal" acts of animal cruelty nor was there a single word in the decision that argued that any of the above should be protected speech as all of these ignorant threads and comments would suggest. (I say ignorant because I know that damned few if any have actually read the decision)
I don't like it either, but I agree with the ruling. A good Supreme Court upholds the constitution. Sometimes this may run against the grain of modern mores.
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.
