by David G. Savage
The Supreme Court struck down on free-speech grounds tiday a federal law that makes it a crime to sell videos or photos of animals being illegally killed or tortured.
In a 8-1 ruling, the justices overturned the conviction of a Virginia man who sold dog-fighting videos.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., speaking for the court, said the First Amendment does not allow the government to criminalize whole categories of speech and expression that are deemed undesirable.
Roberts also said the law was too broad and could allow prosecutions for selling photos of out-of-season hunting, for example.
Only Justice Samuel Alito dissented.
Congress passed the law a decade ago to halt the practice of selling videos that depicted tiny animals being crushed to death. It had been rarely used, however, and came under challenge when prosecutors used it against the dog-fighting industry.
This is the high court's second controversial free-speech ruling this year. In January, the court struck down the laws that prohibited corporations from spending money on election races.
Comments
Who was convicted? Dinty Moore? Oscar Mayer? Jimmy Dean?
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | April 20, 2010 1:07 PM
@ Kenny Bunkport
.
I Gotta hand it to you. That was funny.
.
I understand the theory behind the decision. I just wonder what this does to the status of kiddie porn and snuff flicks. If undesirability is no reason to prohibit certain films, then why don’t these others pass muster too? Wait until someone makes a snuff flick with everyone dressed up like natives of New Gunea. I’m sure someone is going to argue that a snuff film is just “out of season” cannibalism.
Posted by: John W. | April 20, 2010 2:32 PM
To permit is not to condone, I guess.
But with this s---- finding a market in the US, how can US presume to be able to "change" Afghanistan?
The British Empire at its height at least entertained the self-delusion of "Victorian" propriety and moral standards....
It was quite influential, in fact, if you've ever looked at 19th century American architecture, photographs from the latter part of that century, etc..
American Empire, however, dropped the mask of moral superiority long, long ago.
That's why the arguments evoking the shame of Abu Ghraib as "not reflecting American values" etc. etc., fell rather flat. Like lead balloon flat.....
So perhaps the fall of the Empire will be faster than in the case of Britain.....
Posted by: ornery | April 20, 2010 4:07 PM
Televised executions, anyone!! Brought to you by, the most nutritional dog-food in the word, Ex-Con !! Oh, Georgie boy, what have you wreaked on America, with these hacks you installed !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | April 21, 2010 8:20 AM
I know it can be a very gray area, but why can't their be some discretion to free speech? Like when it "promotes" an illegal activity?
I guess in some ways, this ruling can help those against dog-fighting as well. For example, if someone wants to make a documentary against dog-fighting, they would naturally want to include dog-fighting scenes to show its' brutality.
Also, making a "hollywood" movie that involves actors pretending to use cocaine, is not the same as a drug-dealer making a "how to" video that actually promotes the distribution of the "real thing".
But what the justices, I think, try to do, and should do, is to "err" (for lack of a better word) on the side FOR free speech, even if you consider it distatsteful.
That is one of the "problems" living in a free country. Their are some bad things that sometimes have to be allowed. Like it or not.
Posted by: Steve34 | April 21, 2010 9:04 AM
Posted by: John W. | April 20, 2010 2:32 PM
*
*
"snuff flicks" are an urban legend - feminists have been screaming about them for the past 40 years; yet, in all those years not one of them have been able to provide EVEN ONE FILM to back up their claims of existence.
Posted by: BC | April 21, 2010 1:16 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: BC | April 21, 2010 1:16 PM
.
Define “snuff film”? If you define it as a film that depicts the planned murder of a human being, there are plenty of them. I’m sure you can recall that the terrorist beheading of Nick Berg was videotaped and distributed. There are many other similar videos out there on the web. I can even give you a web site that has them; although I am reluctant to do so out of decency.
.
Furthermore, given the generally depraved condition of human beings (their willingness to butcher people in front of a camera already being shown), do you realistically doubt that sick fiends won’t make movies depicting the planned murder of others; even if only for their own revolting pleasure?
Posted by: John W. | April 21, 2010 5:10 PM