• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justices reject ban on animal cruelty videos

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
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.

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court struck down a federal law Tuesday 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 enacted in 1999 to limit Internet sales of so-called crush videos, which appeal to a certain sexual fetish by showing women crushing to death small animals with their bare feet or high-heeled shoes.

Justices reject ban on animal cruelty videos - Crime & courts- msnbc.com
 
Well, I dont really know about the ruling. It's kinda messed up to film animal cruelty for pleasure.

But hey you learn a new sexual fetish everyday :)
 
Well, I dont really know about the ruling. It's kinda messed up to film animal cruelty for pleasure.

But hey you learn a new sexual fetish everyday :)

I know. Who gets off on that kind of crap? :thumbdown
 
I haven't read the ruling and it is hard to see what the value of a "crush film" is but the law could have (perhaps) banned something like those outdoor shows where Terrible Ted Nugent arrows some stag with his trusty compound bow or Excalibur Crossbow President Bill Troubridge nails a trophy Moose in the Canadian wilderness. After all the PETA extremists think that showing a hunting film is no different than watching Maggie DeSade waste a hamster with her Jimmy Choos
 
I haven't read the ruling and it is hard to see what the value of a "crush film" is but the law could have (perhaps) banned something like those outdoor shows where Terrible Ted Nugent arrows some stag with his trusty compound bow or Excalibur Crossbow President Bill Troubridge nails a trophy Moose in the Canadian wilderness. After all the PETA extremists think that showing a hunting film is no different than watching Maggie DeSade waste a hamster with her Jimmy Choos

That is exactly what Roberts said. The article in the Washington Post said this:

But the court said the legislation passed by Congress was far too broad. Anyone who "creates, sells or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty" for commercial gain can be imprisoned for up to five years. A depiction of cruelty was defined as one in which "a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed."

Roberts wrote that the definition was so loose that it could include all depictions of wounding or killing animals, even hunting videos or magazines.

washingtonpost.com

I agree. It's too broad. I'm interested to read Alito's dissent!
 
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.
 
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.
I'd say anything beyond making them put a rating on the video, it's a free speech violation.
 
I'd say anything beyond making them put a rating on the video, it's a free speech violation.

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...
 
Yeah, I'm not sure you can ban it. But WTF sort of fetish is that!?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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 :roll:
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
I haven't read the ruling and it is hard to see what the value of a "crush film" is but the law could have (perhaps) banned something like those outdoor shows where Terrible Ted Nugent arrows some stag with his trusty compound bow or Excalibur Crossbow President Bill Troubridge nails a trophy Moose in the Canadian wilderness. After all the PETA extremists think that showing a hunting film is no different than watching Maggie DeSade waste a hamster with her Jimmy Choos

ha ha ha ha ha !!! "Maggie DeSade " indeed!! What I understand is that the law was too broad and in he opinion of the singing group The Supremes it could indeed render virtually all of the shows on DISC, Animal Planet, National Geo and such banned !!!!

You mentioned the PETA Burgers you know that collection of hyperactive bufoons do want to ban all hunting shows...
 
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.

now this could have been a good piece of fall out "animal rights activists protesting slaughter houses by taking pictures could be prosecuted under it"

Yeh prosecute the PETA Burgers for filming a slaughterhouse !!! I does like that one !!
 
Actually, it's the legistlor's job to write law.

It's a police matter to enforce it, and a judges job to apply it. It's your AGs job to decide what law enforcement should enforce also. Just because a law is on the books doesn't mean it's applied in every possible case or that there should be a punishment for every instance. However the option is there should it be needed.
 
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.
That's why the appeals process exists isn't it?
There are issues with writing laws that are too narrow, if you don't include every instance, you leave gaping loopholes.
 
It's a police matter to enforce it, and a judges job to apply it. It's your AGs job to decide what law enforcement should enforce also. Just because a law is on the books doesn't mean it's applied in every possible case or that there should be a punishment for every instance. However the option is there should it be needed.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom