Justices reject ban on animal cruelty videos

Alvin T. Grey said:

So whats the difference between this and normal animal cruelty? DOn't get me wrong, I'm not against hunting fishing etc, but I do have strong feelings against cruelty for cruelty sake...

Click to expand...

I thought we were talking about the videos. I don't like animal cruelty either, but the videos are free speech.

American said:

I thought we were talking about the videos. I don't like animal cruelty either, but the videos are free speech.

Click to expand...

It's what is happening in the videos that cross the line from free isn't it?

aps said:

I see your point. But you want the law to be applied consistently. If the law is too broad, the US Attorneys can apply it inconsistently. That is something to avoid.

Click to expand...

But the check againist that is supposed to be the judiciary all the way up to the SCOTUS.

Alvin T. Grey said:

But the check againist that is supposed to be the judiciary all the way up to the SCOTUS.

Click to expand...

That's what happened here. The SC said it's too broad and had been applied inconsistently.

Alvin T. Grey said:

But the check againist that is supposed to be the judiciary all the way up to the SCOTUS.

Click to expand...

Under that theory, why have a legislative branch at all? Just let judges decide what folks should or should not do.

.

TOJ said:

Under that theory, why have a legislative branch at all? Just let judges decide what folks should or should not do.

.

Click to expand...

Because the legislative branch stops the judicial branch from becoming too powerful. The Judicial can't make the law, they can only enforce it. The Legislative branch can't make a law that contracticts the supreme law (constitution) which the judicial branch preside over.

Alvin T. Grey said:

Because the legislative branch stops the judicial branch from becoming too powerful. The Judicial can't make the law, they can only enforce it. The Legislative branch can't make a law that contracticts the supreme law (constitution) which the judicial branch preside over.

Click to expand...

How can they limit the judicial branch if the judges can decide how broad or narrow to interpret any law? Be careful for what you wish. You might not like where the lines are drawn by five old white guys (mostly).

.

TOJ said:

How can they limit the judicial branch if the judges can decide how broad or narrow to interpret any law? Be careful for what you wish. You might not like where the lines are drawn by five old white guys (mostly).

.

Click to expand...

Because the judges can only decide matters that are A. Brought before them. B. Already codified in law (by the legislators) they can't make stuff up as they go along.

Alvin T. Grey said:

Because the judges can only decide matters that are A. Brought before them.

Click to expand...

If it's non-controversial, who cares. Most controversial issues are litigated at some point.

B. Already codified in law (by the legislators) they can't make stuff up as they go along.

Click to expand...

So you are happy to let the legislatures pass laws very broadly because the judges, who in most cases have no accountablility to the electorate, will set the limits. Like I said, you seem to have a lot of faith in five old white men.


.

The SCOTUS was right to strike this down because it is too broad.

This is another one of those issues that doesn't have a way to clearly define what a law should cover. I'm all for hunting for food but against sport hunting. As others have mentioned, there are a lot of images depicting the death of animals which shouldn't be banned while cruelty for pleasure should be however, who gets to decide? Someone could always claim their video of dogfighting is for exposing the cruelty to the public while the reality is that it is filmed for pleasure...

"Crushing" videos? Sheesh we humans are sick ****ers... the problem however is that it doesn't seem any more cruel that sport hunting. The goal is killing the animal for pleasure, both of them.

Not only was the law overly broad, it was a stupid approach in the first place because it tries to address the symptom (videos) instead of the problem (animal cruelty). The videos are not the problem. Go after the low-life pond scum who are actually being cruel in the videos instead.