Death to Puppies and Kittens-U.S. Supreme Court Says OK to Film Animal Cruelty
I wonder if it would be nothing more than an expression of free speech to film the torture of supreme court justices? Of course not, but then again, if one reads the conservative court’s latest ruling you just might have to wonder. It is true that the constitution is a great and wonderful thing but isn’t its strict constructionist interpretation a little over the top? Read this piece from Newsweek:
Is it morally reprehensible to torture and kill animals and document it on video? Maybe so. But that wasn’t the issue the Supreme Court was considering in its latest ruling published this morning. In U.S. v. Stevens, a case that tested the constitutionality of a law banning animal-cruelty videos, justices classified it as a First Amendment question, and ruled with significant unity—8 to 1—to strike down the law, which has been on the books since 1999.
Animal cruelty in most forms is illegal—just look at Michael Vick and his wardrobe of orange jumpsuits. But some forms aren’t, like hunting or bullfighting, which creates a gray area in deciding just what crosses the line. The law’s defenders argued that depictions of women in stiletto heels crushing hamsters was akin to child pornography. But it was a wobbly argument. One of the more concerning aspects of child molestation is often considered the long-term effect psychological effect on the child, long after scars heal. There’s also the potential for lifelong embarrassment for a child depicted in a lewd way. But government lawyers, in this case led by Solicitor General Elena Kagan (who’s currently on President Obama’s short list to fill a seat on the high court) had a hard time equating the two.
Child pornography is child pornography, said the court. And images of animal cruelty may be horrible but aren’t illegal. Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, pointed out that just because someone doesn’t like another person’s expression doesn’t mean Congress can legislate it gone. In fact, that’s the sole purpose of the First Amendment.
“The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits,” Roberts wrote. “The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs.”
Still, there’s a valid question of constitutional intent. The Founding Fathers who wrote the First Amendment clearly valued expression free from the forceful hands of government. But when that form of expression is already illegal, should it be included? Justice Samuel Alito, almost always a mainstay of the court’s conservative wing, didn’t think so. “The First Amendment protects freedom of speech,” he wrote as the court’s sole dissenter. “But it most certainly does not protect violent criminal conduct, even if engaged in for expressive purposes.”
Still, whatever happened to common decency? When I was a kid, even showing a little pubic hair in a “men’s magazine” was a HUGE deal! Admittedly that’s at one extreme of the scale, but now even hard core porn can be viewed by young children if they have access to a PC. As a society haven’t we gone just a little bit too far when talking about bestiality, crush films, etc ?
“No Prisoners” – I was just thinking that. I think it’s reprehensible and I just can’t understand the reasoning. I agree with Infidel that such tapes should be siezed and used for evidence – if they’re not destroyed first. Disgusting it is.
In most jurisdictions, but not in all, animal cruelty is often little more than a misdemeanor so vigorous prosecution is not always a given. I agree with MH. It should be a felony everywhere.
All 4 liberal judges voted yeah. It wasn’t just a conservative ruling
Yup. Eight of the nine supported this opinion.
I’ve seen some pretty horrific “animal cruelty” films, although they would be categorized not as “snuff” but as “educational, informational, or entertainment.” Animal being processed for food, lab animals under duress for research, news footage (obviously it could then be sold), and Japanese porn. If a person clandestinely filmed animal cruelty, then the film were to be used to prosecute the perpetrators, would the film’s maker be charged under such a law? What if the filmmaker was only a concerned citizen trying to gather proof, and was not involved in any way?
Animal cruelty itself needs to be a felony.
One thing is certain with the current court. They do not have to be consistent. This is a point in case, if child molestation is illegal it is illegal to film it because it becomes child porn; thus, if animal cruelty is illegal then filming it should be illegal. Perhaps we just need laws entitled animal porn.
Good point Bill. This is yet another crazy ruling from the crazy (8). Alito is excepted here..curiously.
Each time I see the words “animal cruelty,” a profound desire to set something on fire usually follows, here added by my blood transmuting into curds and whey because I too must go “yay, Alito.” What’s next, Cleveland winning a championship in something?
I am the same Randal. There are few things that will trip by trigger and animal cruelty of any kind is one of them. That and Cleveland winning anything of course.
Alito was the dissenter? Good for him.
If animal cruelty is illegal, then videos of it should be treated as evidence of a crime, even if the videos are not themselves illegal.
Alito! Shocked me too Infidel. I suspect that the videos certainly can be used as evidence of the crime, but it just isn’t against the law to make money off them. Nuts.
I wonder if Alito has a pet?