Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Pets
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-21-2010, 03:42 PM
 
Location: Earth Wanderer, longing for the stars.
12,406 posts, read 18,898,633 times
Reputation: 8909

Advertisements

Where is the outrage over this?

The Supreme Court overturned a law that was written during the Clinton administration that banned videos of dog fights and crushing animals to death by stilettos or naked feet (called 'crush' videos).

The decision now allows these things. The decision was 8 to 1 with Justice Alito dissenting.

This is supposed to have something to do with freedom of speech.

We ban kiddy porn, even if the victim child is not a real kid but a made up portrayal of a child.
We ban snuff videos showing the killing of people.

It is not a far reach to imagine people who enjoy the suffering and torture and ultimate death of animals 'graduating' into enjoying this activity with humans.

What is wrong with the Supreme Court? Not only are they not consistent, but they are passing rulings that actually degrade our sensitivities as humans, pulling society downwards.

This is shocking!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-21-2010, 05:47 PM
 
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
1,457 posts, read 4,038,200 times
Reputation: 1479
That is pretty messed up that they would allow this. Unfortunately a lot of people do not categorize animals in the human level. In my opinion they should be above the human, because like you said, sick human beings start with tormenting and killing animals. One day people will realize that humans destroy everything. And they wonder why this world is going to crap.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2010, 05:55 PM
 
Location: Kirkwood, DE and beautiful SXM!
12,054 posts, read 23,234,699 times
Reputation: 31917
I agree that this is a terrible decision. Not sure what can be done about it since only Alito dissented. I am surprised that the animal rights organizations are not up in arms over this decision.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2010, 06:26 PM
 
Location: Earth Wanderer, longing for the stars.
12,406 posts, read 18,898,633 times
Reputation: 8909
I think they would have reversed all the child molestation statutes, as well, but feared a revolution if they did.
The principle is the same.
What they did was inconsistent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2010, 06:49 PM
 
Location: east of my daughter-north of my son
1,928 posts, read 3,629,771 times
Reputation: 888
I think it stinks big time and from what I am hearing a lot of people are upset about it. Unfortunately, more people are saying they don't like but it's a First Amendment issue.

So sad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2010, 10:16 PM
 
Location: Michigan
5,413 posts, read 6,049,939 times
Reputation: 7933
I have only read short reports about this decision; I have not read the decision. However, I do have a few observations.

I am a lawyer and also very active in animal rights so these kind of things always tear me in two. But I think I can understand this somewhat. As I understand it, the decision was that the statute was overbroad, meaning while it proscribed activity that could legally be proscribed (animals cruelty), it also proscribed other activity (free speech) that could not.

And if you think about it, this makes some sense. If someone who is fervently against dogfighting were to film an event and include it in a video produced to show how horrible it is and why it should be outlawed, should that person be prosecuted? If the law provides simply that the possession or publication of the video is a crime, then that is exactly what the result would be.

I should note that in most cases when the Court determines that a law is overbroad, often the legislature simply goes and uses the opinion to revise the law to make it compliant with the Constitution. A well written opinion provides a roadmap to correct the law, and in this case such a correction could actually be better for animals rights activists. I hope that's exactly hat they do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2010, 11:41 PM
 
4,627 posts, read 10,435,018 times
Reputation: 4264
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrowGirl View Post
And if you think about it, this makes some sense. If someone who is fervently against dogfighting were to film an event and include it in a video produced to show how horrible it is and why it should be outlawed, should that person be prosecuted? If the law provides simply that the possession or publication of the video is a crime, then that is exactly what the result would be.

I should note that in most cases when the Court determines that a law is overbroad, often the legislature simply goes and uses the opinion to revise the law to make it compliant with the Constitution. A well written opinion provides a roadmap to correct the law, and in this case such a correction could actually be better for animals rights activists. I hope that's exactly hat they do.
If a video showing torture (fighting, dogs chasing and ripping apart a domestic animal) is provided for entertainment, profit or sexual arousal, why couldn't that part of the bill be ruled legal? I think that was included in the bill (I have not read the bill, only excerpts of the Justices' opinions).

Naturally, I prefer Justice Alito's opinion:

Only Justice Samuel Alito dissented in the case, and he focused on one of the most disturbing aspects raised in the appeal, the marketing of so-called "crush" videos, in which women -- with their faces unseen -- are shown stomping helpless animals such as rabbits to death with spiked-heel shoes or with their bare feet.
"The animals used in crush videos are living creatures that experience excruciating pain. Our society has long banned such cruelty," he said. The courts, he said, have "erred in second-guessing the legislative judgment about the importance of preventing cruelty to animals."
He predicted mores crush videos will soon flood the underground market, because the ruling has "the practical effect of legalizing the sale of such videos." [I agree. Youtube will be bombarded again with such videos].
Roberts suggested a law specifically banning crush videos might be valid, since it would be narrowly tailored to a specific type of commercial enterprise.
Alito noted that would not help dogs forced to fight each other, where, he said, "the suffering lasts for years rather than minutes."
The government had argued a "compelling interest" in stopping people who would profit from dog attack tapes and similar depictions. Roberts dismissed suggestions by the Justice Department that only the most extreme acts of cruelty would be targeted.

Above from this article which was one of the few without videos or pictures depicting the crimes.

Supreme Court strikes down law banning dogfight videos - CNN.com

I hope and pray that you are correct; that a revised version of the bill is already in the works. I can't imagine that it is not. Does that usually happen rather fast? This case has been going on for 3 or 4 years. Will it take yet another 3+ years to resubmit the bill? Will it go back to the Supreme Court, or does that happen only on appeal?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2010, 11:55 PM
 
4,627 posts, read 10,435,018 times
Reputation: 4264
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengrain View Post
It is not a far reach to imagine people who enjoy the suffering and torture and ultimate death of animals 'graduating' into enjoying this activity with humans.

What is wrong with the Supreme Court? Not only are they not consistent, but they are passing rulings that actually degrade our sensitivities as humans, pulling society downwards.
You're absolutely correct. There is a very fine line between the so-called enjoyment of inflicting pain or death on a sentient being and enjoying the same on humans. Hasn't that been proven many times over? And where does it stop for these sub-humans?

Again, I agree. The more we allow such videos or activities to continue, the more our society is pulled down into the gutter and torn apart. And to say that even selling photos of off-season [that is, illegal hunting] hunters would be subject to this law is pretty far-fetched, IMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2010, 08:00 AM
 
Location: Earth Wanderer, longing for the stars.
12,406 posts, read 18,898,633 times
Reputation: 8909
If I hear of plans for a crime and do not report it I can be tried as an accomplice.
If I witness a crime and don't report it, the same can happen.
But, if I record the crime I cannot be prosecuted because it would be stifling my speech????
I still don't get it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2010, 09:25 AM
 
1,688 posts, read 8,114,663 times
Reputation: 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengrain View Post
If I hear of plans for a crime and do not report it I can be tried as an accomplice.
If I witness a crime and don't report it, the same can happen.
But, if I record the crime I cannot be prosecuted because it would be stifling my speech????
I still don't get it.
You need to carefully reread what Crow Girl's post - she's summed it up exceedingly well. You're right, you don't get it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Pets

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top