Supreme Court Strikes Down Ban on Animal Cruelty Videos

[nogods]

In a strong embrace of its traditional First Amendment doctrines, the Supreme Court on Tuesday found unconstitutional a federal law that criminalized the sale or possession of certain depictions of animal cruelty. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., writing for an 8-1 majority, said the law was "substantially overbroad" because it could criminalize, for example, hunting videos in the District of Columbia where hunting is illegal. Justice Samuel Alito Jr. wrote the lone dissent.

But before you get out the rope, jumper cables, and video camera, just remember that the video itself may not be illegal, but the activity depicted therein may be.

[Save Us]

In a strong embrace of its traditional First Amendment doctrines, the Supreme Court on Tuesday found unconstitutional a federal law that criminalized the sale or possession of certain depictions of animal cruelty. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., writing for an 8-1 majority, said the law was "substantially overbroad" because it could criminalize, for example, hunting videos in the District of Columbia where hunting is illegal. Justice Samuel Alito Jr. wrote the lone dissent.

But before you get out the rope, jumper cables, and video camera, just remember that the video itself may not be illegal, but the activity depicted therein may be.

The supreme court erred.

[dtwarren]

Here is the decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf

How did they err?

[nogods]

Carl just said "whew, that was close"

[mikenold]

The court used the good sense that God gave them and interpreted the constituition to say that the video tapping is not illegal, even if the content of the video is. This makes perfect sense. Otherwise the person that videotapes someone abusing a dog or cat could be arrested for possesing the video evidence. This would be a miscarrage of justice.

[FMD]

this is a good thing overall. While on the surface seems bad, this decision could of had far reaching incompatibilities.

[nogods]

The court used the good sense that God gave them and interpreted the constituition to say that the video tapping is not illegal, even if the content of the video is. This makes perfect sense. Otherwise the person that videotapes someone abusing a dog or cat could be arrested for possesing the video evidence. This would be a miscarrage of justice.

Apparently that god is is an idiot. Otherwise the same reasoning would apply to child porn. But it doesn't. Because that was not the reasoning used by the court.

Let me guess, you didn't read the opinion.

[therising]

The court used the good sense that God gave them and interpreted the constituition to say that the video tapping is not illegal, even if the content of the video is. This makes perfect sense. Otherwise the person that videotapes someone abusing a dog or cat could be arrested for possesing the video evidence. This would be a miscarrage of justice.

I agree with Mike.

Did I just say that?? :confused::)

[Save Us]

Apparently that god is is an idiot. Otherwise the same reasoning would apply to child porn. But it doesn't. Because that was not the reasoning used by the court.

Let me guess, you didn't read the opinion.



I agree, hunting videos aside..

ame with posession of animal contraband,,ivory etc. maybe you didn't poach it but it is prohibited from owning.

[Save Us]

I agree with Mike.

Did I just say that?? :confused::)

what the? :confused::confused::eek:

[Riven37]

No the SC said example dog fighting would be OK to sell such videos therefore, those sales would be protected under this ruling.



In a strong embrace of its traditional First Amendment doctrines, the Supreme Court on Tuesday found unconstitutional a federal law that criminalized the sale or possession of certain depictions of animal cruelty. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., writing for an 8-1 majority, said the law was "substantially overbroad" because it could criminalize, for example, hunting videos in the District of Columbia where hunting is illegal. Justice Samuel Alito Jr. wrote the lone dissent.

But before you get out the rope, jumper cables, and video camera, just remember that the video itself may not be illegal, but the activity depicted therein may be.