Supreme Court strikes down ban on videos showing violence against animals

[G_j]

If find this very disturbing, and (amazingly!) agree with Alito.

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0420/supreme-court-strikes-ban-videos-showing-violence-animals/

Supreme Court strikes down ban on videos showing violence against animals

By Raw Story
Tuesday, April 20th, 2010 -- 10:19 am


AP BREAKING:

"The Supreme Court has struck down a federal law aimed at banning videos that show graphic violence against animals, saying it violates the right to free speech.

"The justices, voting 8-1, threw out the criminal conviction of Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Va., who was sentenced to three years in prison for videos he made about pit bull fights."

The law was aimed at quelling videos which show bare-footed or high-heeled women crushing small animals to death with their feet.

Writing for the majority was Chief Justice John Roberts, who said the video goes too far in prohibiting free speech. The sole dissent was Justice Samuel Alito, who argued that the law was justified because it reduces human violence against animals.

[Ian David]

1. Wasn't it Alito whose video rental history was read into the public record before Congress? n/t

[onenote]

4. I don't think so.

[Ian David]

8. You're right. It was Bork.

Robert Bork
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

<snip>

During debate over his nomination, Bork's video rental history was leaked to the press. His video rental history was unremarkable, and included such harmless titles as A Day at the Races, Ruthless People, and The Man Who Knew Too Much. Writer Michael Dolan, who obtained a copy of the hand-written list of rentals, wrote waggishly about it for the Washington City Paper.<17> Dolan justified accessing the list on the ground that Bork himself had stated that Americans only had such privacy rights as afforded them by direct legislation. The incident led to the enactment of the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act.

To pro-choice legal groups, Bork's originalist views and his belief that the Constitution does not contain a general "right to privacy" were viewed as a clear signal that, should he become a Justice on the Supreme Court, he would vote to reverse the Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. Accordingly, a large number of groups mobilized to press for Bork's rejection, and the resulting 1987 Senate confirmation hearings became an intensely partisan battle. Bork was faulted for his bluntness before the committee, including his criticism of the reasoning underlying Roe v. Wade. On October 23, 1987, the Senate rejected Bork's confirmation, with 42 Senators voting in favor and 58 voting against. Two Democratic Senators David Boren (D-OK) and Ernest Hollings (D-SC) voted in his favor, with 6 Republican Senators John Chafee (R-RI), Bob Packwood (R-OR), Arlen Specter (then R-PA), Robert Stafford (R-VT), John Warner (R-VA) and Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. (R-CT) all voting nay. The vacant seat on the court to which Bork was nominated eventually went to Judge Anthony Kennedy.

Bork, unhappy with his treatment in the nomination process, resigned his appellate-court judgeship in 1988.

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork

[superduperfarleft]

2. Prohibiting these kinds of videos wouldn't prevent "crush porn."

What it would do was target animal rights groups exposing cruel industry practices. You don't really think Alito had our best interests at heart, do you?

[G_j]

6. interesting point

I hadn't thought of that

[greencharlie]

12. maybe you should read his opinion...

instead of making wild-ass assertions.

You're just plain wrong.

I don't care WHO the Justice is... when they do something RIGHT, I will applaud them.

In dissent, Justice Samuel Alito said the harm animals suffer in dogfights is enough to sustain the law.

In his dissent, Alito said the court struck down a "valuable statute ... enacted not to suppress speech, but to prevent horrific acts of animal cruelty -- in particular, the creation and commercial exploitation of 'crush videos,' a form of depraved entertainment that has no social value."

Alito said the court's approach has the "practical effect of legalizing the sale of such videos and is thus likely to spur a resumption of their production."

Alito’s dissent suggested that the federal law should be interpreted in a way that would save its constitutionality — for example, by concluding that the law simply did not apply to any depictions of hunting. “I do not have the slightest doubt that Congress…had no intention of restricting the creation, sale, or possession of depictions of hunting,” he wrote. He added that other activities the Court found could be covered by the sweeping law could be put beyond the law’s reach by including them under the exceptions clause of the statute.

On the broader question of what categories of expression should be put outside the First Amendment’s protection, Justice Alito argued that “crush videos” should not be shielded “because they are so closely linked with violent criminal conduct,” which itself gets no constitutional protection. He wrote: “The videos record the commission of violent criminal acts, and it appears that these crimes are committed for the sole purpose of creating the videos.” And, he added, Congress had before it “compelling evidence” that the only way to prevent the crime of animal cruelty was to target the sale of the videos — a perception that, Alito suggested, seemed to have been proven when the passage of the 1999 law led within a few years to destruction of the “crush video industry,” only to have it revive after the Third Circuit struck down that law.

[superduperfarleft]

14. Because my post is pure speculation

based on how the government has treated animal rights and environmental groups in the past (for instance, with the AETA, the SHAC 7, etc.), it's impossible for me to 100% prove that this would result in a chilling effect on animal cruelty investigations. So what it comes down to is whether I trust Alito or not. I don't. I also don't trust the state to take the side of AR and environmental groups against the huge industries who profit from animal abuse and environmental destruction, considering their past behavior on the issue.

[X_Digger]

15. The law as written would leave the government to decide what has..

.. "serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value."

The law in question here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000048----000-.html

[superduperfarleft]

18. Thank you. Excellent point. n/t

[jberryhill]

16. Yes, I read it...

...and his point is that it's okay to have a constitutionally vague law, because we can trust judges not to interpret it in a way we don't like.

That's fuzzy reasoning.

I would oppose a law that said "It is illegal to do bad things." That does not make me a supporter of "bad things". The problem is that application of the law depends entirely on someone's idea of what "bad things" are.

----
Alito said the court's approach has the "practical effect of legalizing the sale of such videos and is thus likely to spur a resumption of their production."
----

No, the practical effect, in our system as it is supposed to operate, is that the legislature needs to look at the majority opinion, go back to the drafting board, and find some other way to narrowly target the intended acts.

As drafted, the law would forbid the sale of hunting videos or magazines in the District of Columbia, because it is illegal to hunt animals there.

[Statistical]

31. "his point is that it's okay to have a constitutionally vague law"

Where did you get that? Can you provide a quote?

The ruling struck down the law specifically because it was overly broad and would be subject to interpretation. Kinda the exact opposite of your claim.

[X_Digger]

34. "his" (Alito) being the dissent. n/t

[Statistical]

35. Ouch. I feel dumb.

Guess everyone gets a couple of those.

[Mojorabbit]

72. Don't care

"The sole dissent was Justice Samuel Alito"

no matter how I feel about him in general, I give him props for this. There are some things that are just plain wrong
and he stood up for the animals that have no voice. I say Bravo. So sue me.

[superduperfarleft]

73. "Don't care."

No, I won't sue you, I'll just shake my head in disbelief that you'll flatly ignore the implications of this particular law when it comes to animal rights investigations, that have been discussed over and over and over on the five billion threads that have been posted about this decision. But at least the people who only read the OP instead of the whole thread before responding are making themselves known so we can keep them away from sharp objects.

"and he stood up for the animals that have no voice."

:facepalm:

[Lorien]

3. So what's not "free speech"? Rape? Child porn?

A line has to be drawn somewhere. Sick fucks.

[jberryhill]

9. You Really Want PETA videos criminalized?

The underlying act here - cruelty to animals - is illegal.

You are confusing a video of the act with the act itself.

List the illegal acts of which a photograph or video of the act should be itself an illegal item.

Child porn is another issue since, additional to the underlying illegal acts, the minor cannot consent to production and distribution of the media.

[Toucano]

24. Consent is not the issue.

Does society really believe that a 17 year old can consent to HAVING sex, but can't consent to being filmed having sex?

No, child porn is illegal because we have decided as a society that it is IMMORAL. It is immoral to produce it. It is immoral to exhibit it. It is immoral to possess it.

Society wants, needs, and has the ability to impose limits of freedom of speech.

Kiddie porn is such an example.
Yelling "fire" in a theater is such an example.
Saying, "Kill the President" is such an example.

Obscenity is NOT protected by the first amendment. It never has been.

The definition of obscenity may change with society, but it still preserves the right to prohibit materials society deems obscene.

[jberryhill]

25. No, they can't consent to the act or the media production

And those are two separate acts.

The rationale to which I was responding appeared to reduce to "a film of an illegal act should be illegal". I do not believe that should be generally true.

With respect to child porn there are additional considerations that easily pull it outside of the general notion.

[Bluerthanblue]

28. except as evidence used to prosecute how are films and photos

depicting the illegal acts like those in the SC case obtained? Their production is a crime isn't it? People make a profit by distributing these to other sick individuals- that isn't 'free-speech' any more than child porn is "free speech".

:shrug:

[jberryhill]

29. "Their production is a crime isn't it?"

There can be a lot of crimes involved in any single set of transactions.

If I take a camera to a concert and make a video of people smoking marijuana, and then sell that video, can you please explain to me the crime you want to charge me with?

This particular appeal involved the conviction under this particular federal statute. Whether he was charged and convicted of other things is not particularly interesting or relevant.

Was he involved in organizing or conducting the dogfights? I don't know, and for the purpose of discussion of this statute, I don't really care. Neither does the court.

YouTube is rife with videos by and of teenagers engaging in criminal mischief. You want to ban the videos whether they were taken by a non-participant, or only if they are taken by participants? And, at that point, aren't you really just trying to get at the underlying illegality of the act involved?

And that's why I provided at least one distinction relative to child porn, because the distribution of it compounds the underlying illegality, and is itself exploitative of a person against whom a crime was committed.

But in the context of, say, parking your car next to a fire hydrant and making a video of it, the continued distribution of the video is pretty irrelevant to the fact that you committed an offense by parking your car there.

And, once more with feeling, this case was about THIS statute, not the broader principle of whether and how to make animal cruelty videos illegal.

[Bluerthanblue]

37. is there a victim in any of the illustrations you have given?

there is a MOTIVE to engage in illegal activities when these videos are allowed to be marketed.

It isn't about speech- some sick fuck might be free to say he (or she) would like to sodomize a child, but anyone with photo's or videos depicting this SHOULD be prosecuted- except as evidence of the crime. and even then, if a person was actually on the other side of a camera and didn't stop what was happening, they are complicit in the crime itself.

Didn't the argument before the SC include the mention that the videos were being sold/distributed?

[jberryhill]

46. "but anyone with photo's or videos depicting this SHOULD be prosecuted"

And, indeed, they are. Child porn is illegal, independent of the underlying acts involved in its production.

What this federal law did was to make certain media illegal, even if the underlying activity was PERFECTLY legal.

[Bluerthanblue]

27. how can an animal consent to being abused by a human?

how are photos and videos of these acts committed against animals any different than those against children?

[jberryhill]

30. You want the legal distinction, sure....

I can make a movie of a cow in a field, merrily munching away on grass. I can distribute and sell that movie all I want. Maybe it wins best picture of the year. I can make posters and signs with the picture of the cow, and start a line of merchandise based on the cow's image.

I don't need the cow's consent, nor do I have to pay the cow royalties.

What I said, and you didn't catch, was that a child cannot consent to the distribution and sale of the film, or the commercial exploitation of his/her image (and there is a complex set of laws dealing with child film actors, for this very reason).

I guess its because we don't recognize a right of publicity or privacy for animals (both of which rights are flip sides of the same coin).

I doubt Mr. Ed was paid royalties, and the way the law is, a horse would not be able to sue over them anyway. And, I'm certain neither Mr. Ed, Lassie, or Gentle Ben consented to any of the TV series in which they were the stars. However, Shirley Temple and McCauley Calkin - different story entirely. Not only do they need parental consent, but some jurisdictions will appoint a guardian for that purpose, so that the parents are not unfairly commercially exploiting their child.

But you are responding to something which isn't quite what I wrote.

So, to summarize:

Nathalie Wood, Judy Garland, Spanky McFarland, Michael Jackson, Tatum O'Neal - legal consent needed (when they were children) to commercially exploit their image.

Flipper, Babe the pig, the hamster in Doctor Doolittle, Trigger, Silver, the Orca in Free Willy - no legal consent needed to exploit their image. Now, their owners and handlers, that's a different story.

See the difference?

[Bluerthanblue]

39. that cow in the field isn't having anything illegal done to it-

how about the kids who are in the audience at a baseball game on tv?

Do you mean to say that each individual has given consent when they pan the crowd?

Could I sue because my child's face appears on tv without my express consent?

[anigbrowl]

41. FYI

how about the kids who are in the audience at a baseball game on tv?

Do you mean to say that each individual has given consent when they pan the crowd?


Yes, they have in legal terms. Attending a baseball game waives the attendees' right of publicity, and as far as kids are concerned, it is waived on their behalf by their parent or guardian. You'll see this in the terms and conditions of any event that is being filmed for the media.

Here's an example - take a look at the third paragraph.
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/tickets/page.jsp?ymd=20100317&content_id=8821290&vkey=tickets_t451&fext=.jsp&sid=t451

[jberryhill]

45. Read the back of your baseball ticket some time

The law is not as stupid as everyone claims.

You DO consent to use of your image at most sporting events.

But, that consent aside, if you are on a public street and some newsworthy event happens, that is not the same kettle of fish as me following you around with a camera (and you are not a public figure) and selling films of your daily life.

But, okay, now let's talk about a deer in that field. I make a movie about hunting that deer, and film it being shot.

The thing about this law is that the legality of the act performed on the animal is defined with reference to the jurisdiction where the media is distributed. Really. Read the decision. That means since deer hunting is illegal in DC, then it is a federal crime to distribute that deer hunting film there.

But this is waaay too far on a digression over the fundamentally different way that humans and animals are treated for the purpose of claims of rights of privacy or publicity.

D'jever notice on that TV show Cheaters, that some of the people have their faces blanked out, and some don't? D'jever wonder how and why that happens?

Now... I don't know the ages of the models in this picture, but I don't think possession of this picture should be illegal:



It's just... wrong.

[Bluerthanblue]

52. I didn't realize that about major league tickets- but that doesn't

change those events that don't have the written clause like parades, local sporting events, etc.
You are right that this is way off the initial topic though.

As for the picture you posted- no, I don't think it should be 'illegal' to possess that. The animals aren't being manipulated by humans to gratify some kind of twisted fetish- it looks like the awkward moment was caught on camera, not something staged. How someone chooses to use this picture is their own business- people who get off on pictures of animals having sex, need only to tune into many nature shows.

I don't believe that child pornography pictures and videos should be illegal because the children can't give consent to their pictures being shown, but because the activities they are documenting IS illegal.

Is dog fighting legal in any of the states? I was under the belief that it's a felony in most if not all states. How can the SC justify their ruling if it is actually evidence of a crime bing committed??? It isn't 'speech'- a person saying or communicating their opinion ABOUT dog-fighting is different than selling/distributing actual incidents of the activity which is, by LAW illegal, and involves victims.

[jberryhill]

57. So are a lot of things

D'jever look at High Times magazine in the 80's or 90's, before there was any limited exception for legal marijuana growing? Lots of pictures of absolutely illegal activities in there.

As a general principle, films, videos, and pictures of illegal activities should not be illegal.

You want to start taking down those YouTube videos of people chaining themselves to the White House fence today to protest DADT, then you go right ahead.

So, then the question is asked about child porn. My only point here is that there are substantially different rationales with respect to media depictions such as child porn. You are reducing this down to "I don't believe that child pornography pictures and videos should be illegal because the children can't give consent". That is not, and was not the point. Within the span of, oh, thirty seconds, it was simply an example of what one can probably come up with as a number of supporting rationales. However, the distribution of child porn is an ongoing violation of the victim's right of publicity/privacy, entirely apart from saying "But it is a film of something illegal!"

As a matter of fact, child porn can consist entirely of depictions and acts which are not in themselves illegal. If I put a spy camera in a high school locker room, film the kids showering, and sell the video, THAT'S illegal. Now, was anyone a "victim" of the acts depicted? No. They were kids taking showers. There is nothing illegal about kids taking showers. What is illegal is my filming it and distributing it.

So, to recap - can there be child porn without active physical abuse of a child? Yes, there certainly can, and I gave you an example.

What I'm hearing is the belief that child porn is illegal because it is a depiction of an illegal act. THAT is not why child porn is illegal. Child porn is illegal on its own merits AS child porn, for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with any underlying illegal act (separate from making, possessing, or distributing the depiction itself).

But if you are going to say "films of things which are illegal should themselves be illegal", then you are on an Everest of slippery slopes there.

[Bluerthanblue]

59. dog fighting is illegal in all 50 states- you can't photograph

a dog-fight without an illegal activity being not just allowed, but arranged. These events are arranged WITHOUT the 'consent' of the animals involved, and they are the ones which bear the pain and suffering involved.

We aren't talking about smokin some weed, or shooting up on video. If someone's doing that and putting it out there for the public to view, then that's up to them. The victims in animal abuse cannot advocate for themselves, any more than children can in pornographic activities.

Trying to equate selling/producing/distributing videos of the intentional abuse/harm of animals with people involved in illegal victim-less crimes like using illegal substances is disingenuous imo-

You say that videos of child porn are illegal, but not because they are evidence of an illegal act- why are they illegal then? If it is simply because the children haven't given 'consent'- there are some sick adults who have willingly allowed their kids to be used for the pleasure of others, if the person doing the abuse in the video is the legal guardian, wouldn't the 'consent' be given and then the video ... technically ...'legal'? THAT would be one hell of a slippery slope, imo.

[jberryhill]

60. "wouldn't the 'consent' be given and then the video ... technically ...'legal'"

No, it wouldn't, and now you are leaving out things I already said.

There is a complex set of laws that address child actors, and the fact of the matter is that the consent of a parent or guardian is often insufficient, by itself, to produce ordinary Hollywood movies.

When they stuck a contract in front of that kid in the movie The Sixth Sense, they needed a legal guardian for that express purpose itself, because of laws addressing the subject of historical parental exploitation of their own actor children. It is quite literally true that as a parent, you can't even consent to have your child in a normal, legal movie, in a lot of circumstances.

"If it is simply because the children haven't given 'consent'"

No, it is not "simply" because of that. I am not going to sit here and provide you with 100 Reasons Why Child Porn - As Child Porn - Is Illegal. However, a child cannot consent to it, and a parent or guardian cannot lawfully consent to it on behalf of the child either. That is one reason why furnishing a child for such purposes is itself independently illegal.

The production and distribution of child porn is an ongoing violation of the rights of the child. Period. For more than one reason. I apologize for not writing a treatise on the subject for the purpose of a DU thread.

However, child porn is not illegal "simply because it is a depiction of an illegal act". If THAT was the rationale, then a lot of child porn WOULD be legal.

By the same token, if I want to make a movie of a dog fight. I don't need to have a dog or organize a fight. I don't need to do a single unlawful thing. I just need to show up at a dog fight with a camera. NOW, had the law in THIS CASE not been an overbroad POS, the conviction on this count would be sustained. We don't know what else, if anything, the guy may have been convicted of, because it is not relevant.

The only point here that I am making is that there are independent reasons why child porn is illegal, and there are independent reasons why dog fight videos should be illegal. They are not the same set of reasons.

Again, the law is not as simple-minded as some folks think. Try this on for size: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Child_Actor%27s_Bill and then come back and tell me how easy it is for a parent to consent to their child being in a film.

[Bluerthanblue]

63. this guy, "Stevens" wasn't selling the videos

for any reason other than to promote dog-fighting.

How could the SC 'rule' that his constitutional right to 'free-speech' was violated? This use of the 'law' WASN'T targeting someone selling a 'hunting magazine' like Roberts claimed "could" happen- it was applied to a man who makes money using products only available by individuals who are conducting an illegal activity. He promotes this activity in his book, and sells training tools to help people engage in the practice.

I could see this decision being made if indeed an 'innocent' person had been charged and found guilty of the law based on the flimsy charge of selling a hunting magazine in DC- this wasn't a case of that. This was a case of a man engaged in promoting an illegal activity though his book, 'aids' and videos and getting caught. The argument that it 'could' have been applied to an otherwise 'innocent' individual shouldn't make the law un-constitutional, until the time that it was applied to an 'innocent' should it?


I can't believe i agree with Alito on anything- this ruling just dumbfounds me.

[X_Digger]

65. If the law were sufficiently strict, it would have passed muster.

But the fact that such a case could conceivably be brought and by following the letter of the law, could succeed- it was found to be too vague.

Placing faith in the government not to abuse this law by bringing such a case does not mean that the law is valid.

[jberryhill]

66. That's not the way our system works

"The argument that it 'could' have been applied to an otherwise 'innocent' individual shouldn't make the law un-constitutional, until the time that it was applied to an 'innocent' should it?"

Yes, it should, and it has for a little over two centuries. It is how our system works.

There are two ways to challenge Constitutionality of a law. One is an "as applied" challenge. That is, the law is not fundamentally defective, but as applied to this case, the consequence is unconstitutional. The other is a "facial" challenge, which boils down to "this law sucks ass, period".

We are a nation of laws and, absolutely, we let people who did "bad things" go free if a law is defective.

Your argument is almost like saying, "well, yes we conducted an illegal search, but we did find marijuana in the trunk of his car". Your logic says, "Okay, convict that guy, but if they searched the trunk and didn't find anything, then the cops did a bad thing."

Here's an important clue to how this works. The ONLY time the constitutionality of a criminal law is tested happens when SOMEONE is convicted under that law. There are NO "innocent" people challenging the constitutionality of any criminal law - they are ALL challenged by people who have been found guilty of something.

The guy was charged and convicted on multiple counts. THIS is the one that was challenged.

You've heard of "Miranda rights", right? Do you know what Ernesto Arturo Miranda DID? He raped an 18 year old girl and confessed to it. He wasn't 'innocent', the way you use the word, the guy raped the girl - he even SAID he did.

His rape conviction was thrown out. His robbery conviction wasn't. And, by the way, he was retried on the rape charge and convicted on other evidence.

It is EXACTLY how our system works.

But you are saying, "Well, if Miranda really raped the girl, then we shouldn't throw out the conviction, but should challenge the procedure in question when someone is 'innocent'. You can't get there with an innocent person. You NEED a guilty one.

Everything you said, by the way, is applicable to selling marijuana growing books and gardening supplies.

[Bluerthanblue]

68. interesting fact about the Miranda law-

I didn't know it's history-
(I'm no scholar, HS diploma only)

I don't understand the connection though. Miranda's rape conviction was thrown out, but he was re-tried? Isn't that against the law? Can a person be charged twice for the same crime?

[jberryhill]

69. You are confusing "tried" with "mis-tried"

If you are tried and acquitted, you can't be tried again on the same charge.

He was tried and convicted. That was ruled a mis-trial because evidence obtained in violation of his rights was used. He was re-tried without the inadmissible evidence. In other words, he didn't get a proper trial the first time, so he got another one instead.

In other words, his complaint was that he didn't GET a fair trial. Therefore, he was entitled to get one. The state was obligated to provide him one.

[ScreamingMeemie]

55. +1

[LibertyLover]

5. OK - anybody got a recording of "The World Turned Upside Down"?

I agree with Justice Alito on this - I never expected I'd be saying that!

[mzteris]

7. oh wow . . . my head's spinning...

me, too.

And here I was thinking really terrible thoughts about the man when I read the thread title. . . I guess it goes to show that everyone has SOMETHING good about them. llll

I'm going to go lie down now.

[superduperfarleft]

10. You agree that PETA videos and similar investigative documents should be criminalized? n/t

[greencharlie]

13. you misunderstand...

Read the opinions carefully.

[jberryhill]

20. How about helping to promote whatever this "understanding" is

I read the opinions, and could not disagree more with Alito.

Can you explain what it is that everyone is misunderstanding?

[Statistical]

33. What do you think Alito is saying?

On edit:

I am an idiot.

[jberryhill]

38. Yes, Alito is saying "I am an idiot" - we agree.

[Statistical]

40. ROFL. Well that works too. n/t

[petronius]

42. Wasn't the law specifically about the sale of violent videos?

I wouldn't think it would apply to animal rights investigations in that case...

[Statistical]

43. Good point....Here is text of the statute

Whoever knowingly creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000048----000-.html

[superduperfarleft]

44. This part seems more relevant:

"the term “depiction of animal cruelty” means any visual or auditory depiction, including any photograph, motion-picture film, video recording, electronic image, or sound recording of conduct in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed, if such conduct is illegal under Federal law or the law of the State in which the creation, sale, or possession takes place, regardless of whether the maiming, mutilation, torture, wounding, or killing took place in the State"

So if PETA videotapes a pig being brutalized by a farmer, they could technically be breaking the law, especially since this section:

"Subsection (a) does not apply to any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value."

leaves its application completely up to a judge.

People are missing the fact that the USSC didn't say that all laws like this are unconstitutional, just this particular one, because how vague it is. There's nothing to say that states can't revise their laws specifically regarding "crush porn" more to the USSC's liking.

[Statistical]

48. You can't just look at part of it...

Whoever knowingly creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

IS PETA selling videos in interstate commerce for financial gain? Well if so they would be guilty but if not simply making a video and for example providing it free wouldn't violate the law.

[jberryhill]

49. "providing it free"

For the purpose of federal legislation the term "in commerce" does not mean what you think it means.

If I am distributing "free stuff" across state lines, I am engaging in commerce.

[Statistical]

51. Hmm well if that is true then the SCOTUS decisions makes sense.

However the wording says "for financial gain". So while giving something for free might be commerce it isn't commerce for financial gain. Right?

Whoever knowingly creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

Then again I am no lawyer.

If PETA sells videos or asks for donations for videos then likely they will would be in violation.

Hopefully the legislature can modify the wording enough to accomplish same goal while being Constitutional and not overly vague.

[X_Digger]

54. If it's used as 'advertising' or a viral video to draw people in..

.. nothing is produced in a vacuum.

What really bothers me is the bit about being illegal in the state where it's sold.

If Bumfrack, IA makes hunting coyotes at night illegal, then a video taken where it was legal is sold to a resident of Bumfrack- bam, 5 years.

It's letting the most restrictive jurisdiction set the standard.

[superduperfarleft]

50. PETA does sell videos, in addition to offering free downloads.

So does HSUS, COK, and various other groups. And that's the point. I think PETA should be free to sell videos documenting animal cruelty in an attempt to get people to stop eating meat, even though I disagree with that particular method. This law would criminalize that.

Again, the states are free to draw up a revised law on crush porn. All the USSC did was say that this particular version of the law was unacceptable.

edit: and guy above already pointed out that, under the law, you don't have to be selling something for it to constitute "commerce."

[Bluerthanblue]

62. so, right now, crush porn is legal?

because of the bogus argument put forth by this 'Steven's' claim ?

This man wrote a book promoting dog-fighting, and sold 'training tools' as well as the videos- He wasn't some kind of 'investigative reporter' or someone wanting to document an illegal activity, he was involved in facilitating and promoting the activity.

:shrug:

I can't understand how anyone could defend this shit- or the jerk who profits from it.

[jberryhill]

67. No one is defending dog fighting or this guy

You really don't get it, do you?

But if you are arrested, you will rely on the fact that you have a right to remain silent, because you like guys who rape 18 year old girls (because that is what Miranda DID, btw).

I'm quite certain of two things:

1. The guy is a scumbag.

2. The law in question is unconstitutionally broad and vague.

[Bluerthanblue]

70. no, I don't get it, and I don't like anyone who rapes anyone-

you don't have to stoop to that kind of shit.

Does this ruling by the SC make crush films legal now?

That was what I asked.

I was asking to learn, not to be fucked over- or to simply annoy -anyone.

Stupid people like me ask questions because we want to understand, not because we have all the answers already.

(your smart-ass comment brings personal pain- i'm a survivor. rape is no joke to me at all, ever. neither is the abuse of children or other vulnerable beings, which might explain why this ruling triggers such outrage in me.)

peace~

[jberryhill]

71. Sigh....

There are lots of laws.

No, this ruling didn't make "crush videos" (until today, I had never heard of such a thing) "legal".

This ruling struck down THIS law.

If you make a crush video, you are likely still going to be busted on the underlying animal cruelty charge.

When you get arrested, you are seldom charged with just ONE thing.

And, you were the one claiming that those who agree with the ruling were "defending" this POS Stevens guy, so I'm not at all impressed with what you are sensitive to. My best friend happens to be a dog, and I am very much a "dog person". So don't sit there and sanctimoniously accuse me of defending dog fighting because I happen to agree that THIS law was overbroad, and then cry about where Miranda rights come from.

[superduperfarleft]

75. You need to back the fuck up on that.

NO ONE is defending crush porn. The fact that you can't understand that leads me to believe that you'd better stay away from arguments regarding law before you hurt yourself.

Also, the fact that you can't critically look at a law to see how it could impact animal rights groups shows me you haven't been paying attention over the past decade in regards to AR groups and environmental groups being targeted by evermore draconian laws that are wrapped up in a neat little package intended to trick people like you into supporting them.

The USSC said nothing in regards to whether a law banning crush porn was constitutional. They said that THIS law was unconstitutional because as it was written, it was vague and subject to an overly broad interpretation. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand.

[Statistical]

32. Delete.

[X_Digger]

11. I agree with the court.

The law was way too broad.

Films exposing animal cruelty could fall afoul of this law under a different administration.

[jberryhill]

17. Link to full decision here....

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf

The majority opinion is compelling, which is no surprise, since it was an 8-1.

[X_Digger]

19. And the law in question..

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000048----000-.html

[Toucano]

21. Is the question of CONTEXT completely lost now?

Producing a video that exposes cruel practices of the meat industry IS NOT THE SAME THING as producing a video of someone torturing a gerbil for shits and giggles (or worse).

Are we SO STUPID as to completely lack the ability to distinguish - not apples from oranges, perhaps - but a Granny Smith apple from a Red Rome apple?

A society SHOULD be able to prohibit the production of animal cruelty videos produced purely for entertainment while not prohibiting a video depicting animal cruelty that is produced for a different purpose.

D'uh!

[superduperfarleft]

22. This ruling doesn't prevent a new law being enacted that specifically bans these types of videos.

The problem with this one was that is was so vague as to leave open the possibility that some future judge could rule that PETA broke the law by filming animal cruelty in an attempt to expose it.

Irony truly is calling someone "stupid" while kneejerking all over the place in your attempt to protect cuddly widdle bunny wabbits.

[X_Digger]

23. This law did not make that distinction..

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000048----000-.html

Exception.— Subsection (a) does not apply to any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.

You leave the government to make the relative judgment about "serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value". I trust our current administration. Do you trust all administrations going forward?

Secondly..

the term “depiction of animal cruelty” means any visual or auditory depiction, including any photograph, motion-picture film, video recording, electronic image, or sound recording of conduct in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed, if such conduct is illegal under Federal law or the law of the State in which the creation, sale, or possession takes place, regardless of whether the maiming, mutilation, torture, wounding, or killing took place in the State; and

(emphasis added)

Under that section, selling a hunting magazine (for example) would be illegal in DC because 'hunting' is illegal in DC.

[jberryhill]

26. I believe a society SHOULD be able to do just that

This law did not do that. Or, rather, it went way overboard in trying to do that.

You are arguing that animal cruelty videos for entertainment purposes should be illegal. I'll bet most people agree with you. I'll bet that all of the Supreme Court justices probably agree with you too.

But that's not what this case was about.

This case was about THIS statute.

THIS statute is constitutionally vague and overbroad.

[Bluerthanblue]

56. is the activity on the films in this case legal in any of the 50 US states?

If someone was arrested for having a 'hunting magazine' in DC then it shouldn't even need to go to the state supreme court to be shown that the charges wouldn't stick.

Hunting is legal in most if not all of the US in some form or other. Is dog-fighting?

Wouldn't the argument given in this decision open the door to child-porn that is produced where it is legal work the same way?

It's legal in some countries for children to be sold into marriage- or would photo's of that b ok? The age of 'consent' in the Philippines is 12, in Japan it's 13, wouldn't videos of these kids having sex be ruled ok based on this kind of SC reasoning?

[jberryhill]

58. And there is your mistake

Child porn is illegal AS child porn.

The false rationale being put forth in this thread is that child porn is illegal because it is a depiction of an illegal act.

Is it illegal for a minor to take a shower? No. Is it illegal for me to make and sell a video of it? You betcha.

Your mistake is thinking that child porn is illegal because the underlying activity is illegal. That is easily not true.

Distribution of child porn is an ongoing violation of the child's rights.

The reasoning in this case has NOTHING to do with child porn, and is not applicable to statutes which address child porn, because the premise under which child porn is illegal is not about the illegality, or not, of the activity being depicted in it.

[Statistical]

36. Yes we should and CAN. However the law as written is the law as wrriten.

Laws are enforced EXACTLY as written not how they were intended.

The court struck down the law because it was vague and could be applied against PETA, National Geographic, or a documentary.

The law in questions makes all such videos a crime regardless of the intent of the video.

A society CAN prohibit violence against animals however legislature needs to craft a better worded law.

[Lorien]

53. Bingo. nt

[raouldukelives]

47. Almost had to delete my fishing shows

[flvegan]

61. I knew this would be a fun topic on DU.

And here I am, with nary a shred of surprise.

[Lyric]

64. I think that a narrow ban on "crush porn" as "obscene" would work better

than a large-scale ban on all videos that display animal cruelty. Too many innocent people could get caught up in a law as broad as the latter--people who are trying to EXPOSE cruelty rather than commit it. If the law was originally meant to target "crush porn", then just re-write the law to ban that thing in particular. Then there's no danger of animal welfare organizations getting caught up in a law that was never meant to target them.

[superduperfarleft]

74. Thank you. A million times thank you.

I've been trying to make the same point over and over and either I've been screwing up my delivery or I've been speaking Greek and didn't realize it.