Supreme Court voids law aimed at banning animal cruelty videos

washingtonpost ^ | April 20, 2010 | Robert Barnes

[JoeProBono]

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

Chief Justice John J. Roberts Jr., writing for an eight-member majority, said the law was overly broad and not allowed by the First Amendment. He rejected the government's argument that whether certain categories of speech deserve constitutional protection depends on balancing the value of the speech against its societal costs.

[the invisib1e hand]

allow me...

[pennyfarmer]

How would PETA pedal their message if they were not allowed to film cruelty and then pass it as industry standard?

[Buckeye McFrog]

I am picturing Buck Henry in the talk show skit from the old Saturday Night Live...

“I support the forced busing of Soviet-style Communists into your neighborhood, whether you like it or not, to kill your puppies!”

[Darren McCarty]

Good news.

Why? Because there was concern about charges against hunting video. That may not have been the intent of the law, but it could be the result of this poorly written vague law.

Dogfighting is already illegal. There's already cruelty to animal statutes. Use what is on the books.

[LongElegantLegs]

He rejected the government's argument that whether certain categories of speech deserve constitutional protection depends on balancing the value of the speech against its societal costs.

The government was arguing this; oh my God.

[Talisker]

Chief Justice John J. Roberts Jr., writing for an eight-member majority, said the law was overly broad and not allowed by the First Amendment. He rejected the government's argument that whether certain categories of speech deserve constitutional protection depends on balancing the value of the speech against its societal costs.

You know that old saw about the First Amendment not protecting yelling "fire" in a crowded theater? It's wrong. On the one hand, it's perfectly legal if there is actually a fire. And on the second hand, if there is not a fire, then it doesn't have to invoke a restriction of the First Amendment, because it's a lie - and thus a negligently fraudulent misrepresentation that leads to public harm.

This, and the article, are examples of why the endless Leftist clamoring for the restriction of rights against "societal costs" is an utterly bogus argument. Rights are intrinsically "wise" in that they are adaptable to circumstance. Codes and Rules and Statutes are based on slavery, and thus are not flexible, but dead, and need constant expansion to attempt to deal with the endless vagaries of the lives of the human being they seek to control.

[gracie1]

Whatever happened to the ACLU argument that the non-offensive speech doesn’t need protection, but offensive speech does.

[Hawk720]

“The government was arguing this; oh my God.”

I find it interesting that Judge Alito was the only one who sided with the government.

[Neil E. Wright]

For those not up to speed, here's where we had a discussion of the case last year.

FREEDOM!

[lionheart 247365]

If killing babies in the woumb doesn’t bother them why should this ?

[backwoods-engineer]

Hooray! My turkey and deer hunting videos are safe from federal tyranny! I only wish my bank account was.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

Only one Justice, Samuel Alito, was the dissenting voice on the issue of animal snuff films. He wanted the ban on them to stay; the other Justices did not. They said it infringed on people's "free speech". I don't even know what to say. So I'll quote HIM: 'He said the law was enacted "not to suppress speech, but to prevent horrific acts of animal cruelty."'

And that's something the other Justices didn't understand???

[calex59]

You and him are the ones who don't understand. The law didn't prosecute actual cruelty, it banned any films depicting animal "cruelty", which could cover a great deal of latitude. Say, for instance, that a man found about about illegal dog fights, took a film of it and showed it in order to get the perps convicted. The film taker himself would be up on charges. There are other instances that made this law a very bad one and one that would have indeed infringed on first amendment rights. Sometimes things aren't what they seem.

There are plenty of animal cruelty laws on the books now and the justices who dismissed this law did not endorse cruelty to animals.