SCOTUS takes a stand against government over-reach

Forums: Politics, Scotus
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

WASHINGTON " In a major and muscular First Amendment ruling, the Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a federal law that made it a crime to create or sell dogfight videos and other depictions of animal cruelty.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority in the 8-to-1 decision, said the law created “a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth” and that the government’s aggressive defense of the law was “startling and dangerous

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/us/21scotus.html?hp

So they got a decision right....How did that ever happen?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,142 • Replies: 12

No top replies

@hawkeye10,

Yes, hawk, it was the right decision even though most if not all of us would find the videos sickeningly perverse: pit bulls ripping each other apart and women in stiletto heels stabbing through mice and kittens.
The plaintiff before the Supreme Court argued that the videos he posted involved activities that were legal in the jurisdiction in which they were filmed.

I hope that we can find someone on A2K who can write-in a balanced manner-about Supreme Court cases in language we can understand.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

The court had little choice, given it had previously decided that child pornography isn't protected speech either. At least Roberts said he would consider a narrower interpretation of the animal protection laws - and he laughed at the Obama administration's "legal" reasoning:

Quote:

...The government sought a ruling that treated videos showing animal cruelty like child pornography - that is, not entitled to constitutional protection.
....."But the First Amendment protects against the government," Roberts said. "We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the government promised to use it responsibly."
http://www.live5news.com/Global/story.asp?S=12341262

1 Reply

@High Seas,

PETA fantasies aside, there is no equation between cruelty towards animals and cruelty towards humans

0 Replies

RJB, the SCOTUS blog already does a pretty good job of that. No need to recreate the wheel.

From the SCOTUS blog:

Links to various media articles about the case and decision:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/04/special-edition-round-up-united-states-v-stevens/

An analysis of the opinion from the SCOTUS bloggers:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/04/first-amendment-left-intact/

This is the full text of the opinion itself:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf

1 Reply

@Butrflynet,

Duly noted B'net. The SCOTUS blog struck me as informative and balanced. I can live with it unless I hear someone complain that it is biased.
Thanks. -Johnboy

0 Replies

Quoth Bill Clinton:

Quote:

When President Bill Clinton signed the bill, he expressed reservations, prompted by the First Amendment,
and he instructed the Justice Department to limit prosecutions
to “wanton cruelty to animals designed to appeal to a prurient interest in sex.”
But since then, the government has used the law in several prosecutions for trafficking in dogfighting videos.

Lemme get this straight:
Does this imply that the philosophy of the Clinton Administration
was that Americans' interest in sex must be non-purient?

If Americans are involved in sex,
must thay strive to exclude any purient thoughts in mind?

ALL sex must be non-purient.

I just wanna be sure that I don 't make any mistakes in the future.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I had no idea till now that crushing animals was a sexual kink. I must live a sheltered life. Apparently these videos were such a problem that we needed a law against them, even though cruelty to animals is already a crime everywhere.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

... (E)ven though cruelty to animals is already a crime everywhere.

That is, sadly, not true as I understand the case before the Court. The videos came from a country where such activity is not illegal. That was kind of the whole issue before the Court. This guy merely posted videos of something that was legal in another country. In this case: Japan, I believe.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

by everywhere I meant everywhere in America. Some of what this guy sold was from long ago, some was where cruelty is not illegal, and some of it was the taping of an illegal act.

0 Replies

Actually, there is a connection between cruelty to animals and cruelty to humans.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

Quote:

Actually, there is a connection between cruelty to animals and cruelty to humans.

I am zen Buddhist, I would say that everything in the cosmos is connected....do you have a point?

We punish for what others do wrong, not for what we fear they will do in the future....Bushes doctrine of preemptive war aside.

0 Replies

There have been several studies demonstrating the link between abuse of humans and abuse of animals. Animal shelters are being established to take in pets from homes that women and their children flee because of abuse. Ignoring the link is cavalier and while not false is inaccurate.

0 Replies

SCOTUS takes a stand against government over-reach

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know