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.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,757,602 times
Reputation: 3587
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orincarnia
what you hate is people who organize dog fights, thats still against the law with animal cruelty laws.
the guy with the camera is doing nothing wrong.
Actually he could be wrong because in many states it is also a crime to attend a dog fight. But my understanding is that these were made in a foreign country so no laws were broke.
I am not sure what your point is. Is it protecting life and the pursuit of happiness or protecting idealogical rhetoric which actually contradicts the former?
My point was that it's impossible to understand the Supreme Court's decision when your emotions rule over your mind.
"This case, however, involves an application of §48 to depictions of animal fighting. Dogfighting, for example, is unlawful in all 50 States and the District of Columbia, see Brief for United States 26, n. 8 (listing statutes), and hasbeen restricted by federal law since 1976. Animal Welfare Act Amendments of 1976, §17, 90 Stat. 421, 7 U. S. C. §2156. Respondent Robert J. Stevens ran a business,“Dogs of Velvet and Steel,” and an associated Web site,through which he sold videos of pit bulls engaging indogfights and attacking other animals. Among these videos were Japan Pit Fights and Pick-A-Winna: A Pit Bull Documentary, which include contemporary footage of dogfights in Japan (where such conduct is allegedly legal) as well as footage of American dogfights from the 1960’sand 1970’s.2 A third video, Catch Dogs and Country Liv-ing, depicts the use of pit bulls to hunt wild boar, as well as a “gruesome” scene of a pit bull attacking a domestic farm pig. 533 F. 3d 218, 221 (CA3 2008) (en banc). On the basis of these videos, Stevens was indicted on three counts of violating §48."
In the First Amendment context, however, this Court recognizes “a second type of facial challenge,” whereby a law may be invalidated as overbroad if “a substantialnumber of its applications are unconstitutional, judged inrelation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” Wash-ington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U. S. 442, 449, n. 6 (2008) (internal quotationmarks omitted). Stevens argues that §48 applies to com-mon depictions of ordinary and lawful activities, and that these depictions constitute the vast majority of materialssubject to the statute. Brief for Respondent 22–25. The Government makes no effort to defend such a broad ban as constitutional. Instead, the Government’s entire defense of §48 rests on interpreting the statute as narrowly lim-ited to specific types of “extreme” material. Brief for United States 8. As the parties have presented the issue,therefore, the constitutionality of §48 hinges on how broadly it is construed. It is to that question that we now turn.
We read §48 to create a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth. To begin with, the text of the statute’s ban on a“depiction of animal cruelty” nowhere requires that thedepicted conduct be cruel. That text applies to “any . . . depiction” in which “a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed.” §48(c)(1). “[M]aimed, mutilated, [and] tortured” convey cruelty, but “wounded” or “killed” do not suggest any such limitation.
The Government contends that the terms in the defini-tion should be read to require the additional element of“accompanying acts of cruelty.” Reply Brief 6; see also Tr.of Oral Arg. 17–19. (The dissent hinges on the same assumption. See post, at 6, 9.) The Government bases this argument on the definiendum, “depiction of animal cruelty,” cf. Leocal v. ********, 543 U. S. 1, 11 (2004), and on “‘the commonsense canon of noscitur a sociis.’” ReplyBrief 7 (quoting Williams, 553 U. S., at 294). As that canon recognizes, an ambiguous term may be “given more precise content by the neighboring words with which it isassociated.” Ibid. Likewise, an unclear definitional phrase may take meaning from the term to be defined, see Leocal, supra, at 11 (interpreting a “‘substantial risk’” ofthe “us[e]” of “physical force” as part of the definition of“‘crime of violence’”).
But the phrase “wounded . . . or killed” at issue here contains little ambiguity. The Government’s opening brief properly applies the ordinary meaning of these words, stating for example that to “‘kill’ is ‘to deprive of life.’” Brief for United States 14 (quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1242 (1993)). We agree that“wounded” and “killed” should be read according to their ordinary meaning. Cf. Engine Mfrs. Assn. v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist., 541 U. S. 246, 252 (2004).Nothing about that meaning requires cruelty.
...While not requiring cruelty, §48 does require that thedepicted conduct be “illegal.” But this requirement doesnot limit §48 along the lines the Government suggests.There are myriad federal and state laws concerning theproper treatment of animals, but many of them are not designed to guard against animal cruelty. Protections of endangered species, for example, restrict even the humane“wound[ing] or kill[ing]” of “living animal[s].” §48(c)(1).Livestock regulations are often designed to protect thehealth of human beings, and hunting and fishing rules (seasons, licensure, bag limits, weight requirements) can be designed to raise revenue, preserve animal populations,or prevent accidents. The text of §48(c) draws no distinc-tion based on the reason the intentional killing of an animal is made illegal, and includes, for example, the humane slaughter of a stolen cow.4
...The only thing standing between defendants who sellsuch depictions and five years in federal prison—otherthan the mercy of a prosecutor—is the statute’s exceptionsclause. Subsection (b) exempts from prohibition “any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific,educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.” The Government argues that this clause substantially narrowsthe statute’s reach: News reports about animal cruelty have “journalistic” value; pictures of bullfights in Spain have “historical” value; and instructional hunting videoshave “educational” value. Reply Brief 6. Thus, the Gov-ernment argues, §48 reaches only crush videos, depictions of animal fighting (other than Spanish bullfighting, seeBrief for United States 47–48), and perhaps other depic-tions of “extreme acts of animal cruelty.” Id., at 41. The Government’s attempt to narrow the statutory ban,however, requires an unrealistically broad reading of the exceptions clause.
[quote=KevK;13844142]Actually the Court struck that law down too.
I agree with the decisions in both cases. First, in the child porn case, the purpose of that law is to protect children from sexual exploitation. If a photo or film is made by animation of Photoshop then no child has been harmed and the First Amendment should prevail.]
The activities of torturing animals and raping children are both illegal activities, the same laws must apply to both.
There was a good point made.
If I merely hear of a plan to commit a crime and do not report it I am considered an accomplice. Certainly, if I hang around and witness it, I am an accomplice.
It should follow that recording such an act would also be illegal.
The Constitution properly protects the right to publish obnoxious material. That is very important to the political process.
As far as publishing torturing animals is concerned that is just a short step from publishing torturing humans. In many was the ultimate obnoxious material.
I wonder why the creators, developers and the folks that pander to these activities have not be prosecuted under the existing law designed to prevent these offenses. I see this as you may film and distribute these offensive materials but you may not do these crimes. Time for some prosecutions.
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.
