Supreme Court Overturns Law Banning Depictions of Animal Cruelty

Apr 21, 2010 -- 2:37AM, Mlyons619 wrote:

Do you believe the Supreme Court have protected a "valuable right" to film dogs killing each other?  Or do you believe - as I do - that the Supreme Court "screwed the pooch...?"

Do you understand that the law had such a broad definition of "animal cruelty" that hunting and fishing shows could have been banned? 

And the law did not only apply to those who filmed the event.  The law also applied to those who used the footage for any purpose.  That is because of the overly broad language of the law, which is a one of the reasons SCOTUS hears many cases concerning the first amendment.

EDITED:  posted incorrect information concerning the law. 

Apr 21, 2010 -- 9:57AM, Nepenthe wrote:

Apr 21, 2010 -- 2:37AM, Mlyons619 wrote:

Do you believe the Supreme Court have protected a "valuable right" to film dogs killing each other?  Or do you believe - as I do - that the Supreme Court "screwed the pooch...?"

Do you understand that the law had such a broad definition of "animal cruelty" that hunting and fishing shows could have been banned?  Or even documentaries on animal cruelty if they showed any footage of actual animal cruelty?

And the law did not only apply to those who filmed the event.  The law also applied to those who used the footage for any purpose.  If person A filmed a dog fighting ring, and person B used the film to promote awareness about dog fighting, person B could be found guilty under the existing law.  That is because of the overly broad language of the law, which is a one of the reasons SCOTUS hears many cases concerning the first amendment.

That does clarify things a bit.  A lot actually.

Apr 21, 2010 -- 10:21AM, Mlyons619 wrote:

Hunting and fishing is LEGAL and does not entail prolonged cruelty, as does illegal dogfighting.

Hunting and fishing are illegal in D.C., which means D.C. residents would be affected by the law.  In fact, part of Roberts opinion was that if just one jurisdiction outlaws a specific definition of animal cruelty, such as hunting being illegal in D.C., federal officials could apply that to all jurisdictions, since it is a federal law.  So, in order to be in compliance with the federal law, you would have to know the law of all jurisdictions where the federal law applies.

From the abajournal

"According to Roberts, the statute is so broad that it could bar videos of hunting, which is illegal in the District of Columbia. The law reaches animal cruelty that is illegal in a single jurisdiction, allowing “each jurisdiction to export its laws to the rest of the country," he writes.

And I was wrong about the documentary thing, which is my fault for no properly researching it.  I will edit my above post.

"An exception is allowed for depictions with serious educational, journalistic or artistic value."

Not just dog fights and human beings' abuse of dogs like pitbulls:

In an eight to one decision, the highest US court overturned the three-year sentence against Robert Stevens, who sold videos of pitbull dog fights that he had not himself organized.

Stevens was prosecuted under a 1999 law that criminalized videos depicting animal cruelty in an attempt to target the trade of fetish films showing women in high heels crushing to death small animals such as hamsters or kittens.

Source

Apr 21, 2010 -- 12:24PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:

The Supreme Court was right about this, even though they were right for the wrong reasons.

We can't make every illegal action illegal to depict.  If that were the case, newspaper photographers who catch bank robbers in the act or someone being beaten up or even someone being shot would not be able to publish those photographs, and that WOULD be unconstitutional.  

Freedom of the press, even press you vehemently disagree with, is a greater right than the right not to be offended by content.

 

If you are allowing an illegal act to be performed or staging it for photographing purposes, there ought to be some accountability for that and not the speech itself. If a person witnesses a crime and fails to report it, they can be charged with something. Same should apply to photographing something especially if the photographer was a part of instigating the act on film.