Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2009
| Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds RSS | Follow Newser on Twitter Twitter


20

Justices Cite Free Speech in Animal Abuse Videos

They seem ready to strike down law

Share

(Newser) – The Supreme Court seems likely to back an appellate court ruling that said depictions of animal cruelty are protected as free speech by the First Amendment. In arguments today, the justices considered the case of a man convicted of selling dogfighting videos under a 1999 law that equates videos of animal cruelty with child pornography. Most of the justices seemed to be of the opinion that the law’s definition of banned content is too vague, notes USA Today.

Justice Scalia asked whether the law could cover videos of Spanish bull-fighting, while Justice Alito questioned whether the hypothetical "Human Sacrifice Channel" would be banned. The law exempts content with educational, political, historical, or other social value, and Chief Justice John Roberts implied in his questioning that he considers those guidelines too broad and subjective.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. sits for a new group photograph, Tuesday, Sept. 29, 2009, at the Supreme Court in Washington.
Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. sits for a new group photograph, Tuesday, Sept. 29, 2009, at the Supreme Court in Washington.   (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
A pit bull rescued from a dog-fighting ring.
A pit bull rescued from a dog-fighting ring.   (AP Photo/St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Dawn Majors)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

How can you tell that these aren't political videos?
- John Roberts, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
20 comments
VIEWING:
 
Netstorm2k9
Oct 6, 09 4:03 PM CDT
Theoretically, they could say bass fishing videos were depictions of animal cruelty, and then ban them. But then the south would rise up. Of course, I'd rise with them. Nothing like that tug on your rod to make your soul soar! Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+7
IN RESPONSE:
Netstorm2k9
Oct 6, 09 4:05 PM CDT
I read that again after I posted and saw the double-entendre there. Oops.
Vote up! Vote down!
+10
IN RESPONSE:
kokuaguy
Oct 7, 09 5:08 PM CDT
Freudian slip?
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
Unaffiliated
Oct 6, 09 4:09 PM CDT
OK, I'll accept that depictions of animal cruelty shouldn't be illegal, as long as those depictions are promptly used to prosecute those who perpetrate the cruelty. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+11
IN RESPONSE:
Timinator2K
Oct 6, 09 4:12 PM CDT
Yes, nail their balls to the wall....in a humane fashion, of course.
Vote up! Vote down!
+6
LEAVE A
COMMENT
Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.