Court voids law aimed at animal cruelty videos

Court voids law aimed at animal cruelty videos

4/20/10

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.

The videos virtually disappeared once the measure became law, the government argued.

But Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said the law goes too far, suggesting that a measure limited to crush videos might be valid.

In dissent, Justice Samuel Alito said the harm animals suffer in dogfights is enough to sustain the law.

Court voids law aimed at animal cruelty videos - Yahoo! News

 

God Bless you Bob stevens!

 

so what is this really saying ? do it mean if a fella had some old 8mm or vhs before matching was a felony he can't be charged with parphanilla(sp)?

 

Thanks admin for sprucing it up, LOL!

 

Maybe now people will be able to settle a few rumors about some of the old dogs now their able to see them in action

jd

 

I think thats what it is saying.

JD

 

I agree Ben. You can bet that AR and HSUS movement are working feverishly to close that loop hole. Even still it is a good day for Bob Stevens, his friends and family!

 

:dogkiss:Out of the quagmire comes these words by a commenter elucidating on the law and its repercussions or not.

The Court did NOT say that dogfighting is OK.
The Court did NOT say that filming dogfights is OK.
The Court did NOT say that selling videos of dogfights is OK.

The law is too broad. A rewritten law will emerge that will make the choices in enforcement easier. As soon as things start getting together you will find that a better, more functional law will come forward.

Those who decide to use this time as a means of doing filming of abuse for sale will find out that they will continue to be the Pariahs that they have chosen to be.

 

good post mac.

 

Ken you might endulge your self on a little research on the history of this case.

 

Watch out.Think before you do something on film.Once its on film law enforcement and ARG will be able to record it or review it.

 

what im asking about is example 8mm or vhs before it was a felony. because if i remember right bob's videos had matches that were filmed many years ago. anyone who films anything illegal today is a dipshit. but for historical purpose & documentation of the breeds history. they have matches in "off the chain" & other propaganda documentaries.

 

BB now thats a good point.If a person does something before its made illegal I don't believe that law enforcement can go back in time and enforce it.But I'm not a lawyer. What they will do is use it to see if anybody is on it that they can identify and use the information on the tape for later on.

 

Guys, this ruling SUCKS. I went online and read the whole thing. They said animal cruelty laws are a "compelling interest" fo the government. That means the government can ban whatever they decide animal cruelty is. This has never been said by the highest court before. THis is one small step forward and a big ass mile backwards.