Court to weigh free-speech issue of pit bull case
We read:
"The Supreme Court said Monday it will explore a dark corner of Americans' fascination with animals, whether the sale of videos depicting dog fights and violent deaths of small animals is protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.
The justices in the fall agreed to hear arguments in the government's appeal of a court ruling that struck down a federal law aimed at the sale of images of animal cruelty.
Lawmakers were especially interested in limiting the sale of tapes of fights between pit bulls and so-called crush videos that show women crushing to death small animals, often with their bare feet or high-heeled shoes.
The federal appeals court in Philadelphia said the law, enacted in 1999, illegally restricts speech, although it acknowledged that preventing cruelty to animals is a worthy goal.
Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Va., was convicted and sentenced to 37 months in prison for selling videos of pit bull fights. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also reversed the conviction.
Source
6 comments:
Isn't it already illegal to profit from criminal activity? Dog fighting and such are a crime so selling tapes of such is also illegal.
So it should be my freedom of speech to go up and kick the shit out, mutilate, or might result in death of some one who made and/or participated in a Crush video?
Then I'm all for it!
Wow, tough call. Suppose the tapes are made in a jurisdiction that has no strictures on cruelty to animals? Then one is NOT profiting from "criminal activity," so there is no way to prevent the sale of the tape without this law.
Of course, I'm not sure how you go about advertising that you are taping in some backwater town in Mexico or Southeast Asia (where your activities are NOT illegal) without causing a backlash that MAKES them illegal! Kind of a Catch-22.
As for the stricture against profiting from criminal activity - is that a State Law, a Federal Law, or some vague "precedent?"
Selling the tapes should not be illegal, BUT creating the tapes and for the seller to refuse to cooperate with law enforcement authorities to apprehend the participants should be (and is).
The animal cruelty doesn't happen when selling the tapes, but beforehand. Banning videos of something you don't like is just brushing bad things under the rug in the hope they go away. That never works.
Anon 8:10 am,
So by your "logic", selling drugs should not be illegal, but growing them should be illegal? If making these tapes is illegal, then possessing them is also illegal.
And, if showing tapes of animals being killed is protected by the 1st Amendment, what about tapes of humans being killed?
To add to the confusion, what can we do with National Geography Specials? Many of them show animals being eaten by other animals. And then there are the TV shows that show people being attacked by animals, some of which make it to local TV news shows.
Perhaps the way to deal with this is how some are starting to say about how to deal with Sexting. It is legal for a person to take a naked picture of themselves, and forward it, no matter what their age, but it is illegal for forward it or sell it.
Mobius
Post a Comment