Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36

Thread: Justices reject ban on animal cruelty videos

  1. #11
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    10-20-11 @ 02:44 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    371

    Re: Justices reject ban on animal cruelty videos

    Man... never heard of crushing videos, sounds messed up. And I know a thing or two about messed up, I have watched and seen any type of hentai out there, and not even that has crushing fetishes.. tentacles yes... crushing no...

    Interesting ruling never the less.

  2. #12
    Educator Alvin T. Grey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dublin
    Last Seen
    10-08-10 @ 06:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    839

    Re: Justices reject ban on animal cruelty videos

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Yeah, I'm not sure you can ban it. But WTF sort of fetish is that!?
    They could.
    If your position on the matter is like mine i.e I don't give a flying whatever what two consenting individuals do in the privacy of their own bedroom as long as it doesn't break the law......

    And imo torturing small animals to death for sexual pleasure violates animal welfare laws promoting and or profiting the torture of said animals also violates the law; then yes, I guess they could ban the practice.
    If life gives you Melons you probably have dyslexia.

  3. #13
    Passionate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    03-07-11 @ 03:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,675

    Re: Justices reject ban on animal cruelty videos

    Quote Originally Posted by Alvin T. Grey View Post
    They could.
    If your position on the matter is like mine i.e I don't give a flying whatever what two consenting individuals do in the privacy of their own bedroom as long as it doesn't break the law......

    And imo torturing small animals to death for sexual pleasure violates animal welfare laws promoting and or profiting the torture of said animals also violates the law; then yes, I guess they could ban the practice.
    They just need to draft a law that is more tailored to this situation. The one that was overturned was too broad.

  4. #14
    Educator Alvin T. Grey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dublin
    Last Seen
    10-08-10 @ 06:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    839

    Re: Justices reject ban on animal cruelty videos

    Quote Originally Posted by aps View Post
    They just need to draft a law that is more tailored to this situation. The one that was overturned was too broad.
    I figured that that is what judges are for though...
    If life gives you Melons you probably have dyslexia.

  5. #15
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon

    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    25,385
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Justices reject ban on animal cruelty videos

    Quote Originally Posted by Rightwing86 View Post
    Man... never heard of crushing videos, sounds messed up. And I know a thing or two about messed up, I have watched and seen any type of hentai out there, and not even that has crushing fetishes.. tentacles yes... crushing no...

    Interesting ruling never the less.
    TMI...TMI

  6. #16
    ThunderCougarFalconBird
    roughdraft274's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,771

    Re: Justices reject ban on animal cruelty videos

    Wouldn't what is going on these videos be considered animal cruelty, which is already illegal?

    I don't know how stepping on a puppy with high heels qualifies as free speech. Talking about it and fantasizing about it, sure, what ever you want, but actually doing it.

    I say we find the bastards that do this stuff and throw them in jail for animal cruelty.

    I had one emailed to me a long time ago by a friend out of disgust. It makes two girls one cup look like sesame street.

  7. #17
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:21 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,756

    Re: Justices reject ban on animal cruelty videos

    Quote Originally Posted by aps View Post
    Alito was the only dissent here.
    Maybe they voted by butterfly ballot and he got confused?

  8. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 03:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Justices reject ban on animal cruelty videos

    Quote Originally Posted by Alvin T. Grey View Post
    I figured that that is what judges are for though...
    Actually, it's the legistlor's job to write law.

  9. #19
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    41,001

    Re: Justices reject ban on animal cruelty videos

    Quote Originally Posted by aps View Post
    I am always fascinated by cases that result in a large vote of both the liberal and the conservative justices. Alito was the only dissent here.

    I don't know what I think of the ruling.
    The main problem with the law is that it was so broad that, theoretically, animal rights activists protesting slaughter houses by taking pictures could be prosecuted under it. SCOTUS did not rule, based on any First Amendment argument. They ruled on the broadness of the law, and struck it down for that reason.
    Last edited by danarhea; 04-22-10 at 04:48 PM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  10. #20
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Justices reject ban on animal cruelty videos

    Quote Originally Posted by Alvin T. Grey View Post
    Interesting conundrum indeed. I guess the only sensible way to deal with this is to leave the law intact and allow a judge to, you know, judge it on a case by case basis.....

    You know, a guy catching a fish or shooting a moose? sure. Thats hunting.
    A guy sticking a firecracker up a puppys butt?

    No.
    Considering that we have 15-year-old couples who have sex and then upon breaking up the mother of the daughter goes to the police and press charges against the ex-boyfriend based on sex offender laws that are written to target child molesters, no, I don't trust judges to judge these on a case by case basis, nor for prosecutors to use their prosecutorial discretion in deciding which cases need to be prosecuted and which need to be dropped just because they want a higher number in their "Win" column for when they run for some other office.

    They should write a narrower law.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •