Good Luck Bob Stevens!

Today is one of the most important days for all who live in the USA. The 1st Amendment right to free speech will be looked at today. A valiant man in Robert Stevens has been fighting the good fight for a long time and today is his day in the Supreme Court. Let us get together and wish him the best.

This case does not only affect him and those videos but the right to show hunting and fishing scenes that may be labeled "animal abuse" by those humaniacs.

Here is something that I quickly googled for you guys:

United States v. Stevens. Argument: Oct. 6.

This case challenges whether a federal law that prohibits the sale or ownership of animal cruelty materials violates the First Amendment's free speech clause.

Robert Stevens, 68, appealed his 2005 conviction for selling videos depicting animal cruelty. A federal appeals court sided with him.

Stevens argues that his films have societal merit - they teach the history and nature of pit bulls. But one video has a 3-minute clip of dogs fighting, which Stevens says shows the "difference between dog fighting and catching stock," wild boars in this instance.

"This case is really going to be a question of low value versus high value," said David Cole, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center.

The National Rifle Association and the Professional Outdoor Media Association, among others, have filed briefs in favor of Stevens, fearing that hunting materials could be outlawed. Five animal-rights groups filed briefs opposing Stevens' argument.

 

Another Article relating to Bob Stevens, 1st Amendment, and his day in court today:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05/first-amendment-under-sie_n_310360.html

First Amendment Under Siege

I'm in hot water again at home. You try explaining to a family that loves all creatures great and small that you're defending the rights of a man sentenced to prison for creating and selling videos with footage of pit bulls tearing into one another. Why have publishers (and booksellers, librarians, and authors, for that matter) come to his defense? Why should the outcome of his case matter to publishers and readers?

It does matter. U.S. v. Stevens, which will be argued before the Supreme Court today, October 6, is the most important free speech case of the new century. Its outcome will influence the shape of First Amendment protection for a long time to come, because what the government wants to criminalize are not acts of animal cruelty, which are already illegal in all 50 states, but speech about those acts.

At issue is a federal statute that prohibits the creation, sale or possession of any depiction of animal cruelty if the act is illegal where the depiction has been created or sold. The Clinton-era law was aimed at so-called "crush videos," a particularly repellent sexual fetish involving the stomping of small animals.

If the law had been limited to "crush videos" we wouldn't have gotten involved. But Congress passed a much broader law, aimed at "regulating the treatment of animals." Although President Clinton promised enforcement would be limited to "wanton cruelty to animals designed to appeal to a prurient interest in sex," this has not been the case. Virginia resident Robert J. Stevens, a dog-trainer and pit bull aficionado, was indicted under the statute by a federal grand jury in Pennsylvania, convicted and sentenced to 37 months in prison for selling educational videos (available through mainstream sources including Amazon.com) containing footage of pit bulls fighting and attacking other animals. Stevens did not create the footage: some of it was 30-years old and other footage came from Japan, where dog fighting is legal. The conviction was overturned by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, which found the law to be an unconstitutional ban on protected speech (although it should be noted that nothing in the federal appeals court ruling would prevent law enforcement officials from using videos or other depictions of cruelty to go after and prosecute those engaged in illegal conduct).

Publishers, librarians, booksellers and authors, joined by independent film makers, documentary makers, and others, concerned about the danger to the First Amendment, have filed a brief with the Supreme Court pointing out that despite the Government's false assurance that the statute is limited to animal-fighting and "crush" videos, the law's stunning over-breadth would put at risk creators of illustrated books, films, or magazine articles graphically depicting things such as slaughterhouse practices, bullfighting, or poaching.

In defending a statute criminalizing the depiction of animal cruelty, the government is arguing that a whole category of speech can be denied First Amendment protection based on the radical proposition that the "value" of the speech should be weighed, on a case-by-case basis, against a compelling government interest to suppress that speech. With the exception of certain clearly defined categories such as true threats, incitement to imminent lawless action, and child pornography, speech, even reprehensible speech, is protected by the First Amendment. If the government succeeds in carving out a whole new category that is unprotected, it takes little imagination to see where the road might lead: carve-outs for hate speech? Blasphemy? Violence?

The fact that the law has an exception for material with "serious religious, political, scientific, journalistic, historical or artistic value," does not make it more palatable.

Do we really want politicians or judges and juries making subjective decisions about what speech has value? Before we cede such power we would do well to remember that not long ago a judge in New Jersey wanted deny author Tim O'Brien a journalist's right to maintain the confidentiality of his sources because, in the judge's opinion, O'Brien's book TrumpNation was "entertainment" and not "news." The fact that the ruling was subsequently overturned doesn't make it any less disturbing.
Our right to speak freely is unmatched anywhere in the world and that is worth fighting for--even if I have to carry the fight home with me to a family of animal lovers. Looks like I'll be in hot water for a while longer.
Judy Platt is Director, Freedom to Read & Communications/Public Affairs, Association of American Publishers

 

This case affects the board as well. Our speech is currently protected by the 1st Amendment. Glad to see other interest groups have seen the danger in limiting what we say.

 

so if the supreme court rules for Bob S. would this change intent laws as far as books,mags, & vids?

 

Correct. The US Court of Appeals already ruled those laws unconstitutional. The USA government has appealed that decision to the US Supreme Court. So right now, all of those things you mentioned ARE protected under the 1st Amendment.......

 

Good luck Bob Stevens, were rooting for ya buddy

 

yeah, this ones gonna be interesting. how and when will we know the outcome?

 

wow, kinda off topic, but i wasnt aware of what a "crush vid" was until now....:eek:

 

Good Luck Bob..... This man is game as hell...Funny that another human can determine the value of my thoughts,words,and feelings

 

Good luck bob!!!!!!!!were pulling for ya!!!!

 

Granted I am not well versed on these laws but I have been wondering lately how they are getting away with playing these "dog matches" on different TV documentaries, like the Michael Vick deal on animal planet, I thought it was illegal to possess this material.

Good luck Bob, kick some tail.

 

Hope they see things his way. good luck bob!

 

the good thing is that it is NOT just seeing it "his" way.....for a change, all the Media IS pulling for him......publicly or within close doors.

 

Yeah, i saw the New York Times mentioned

 

Of course they are pulling for him, they have the most to loose if he loses...They better be backing him.......lol

 

Bump......

 

Anything new on this?

 

This was the SC news on this subject tonight.

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=11266531

 

does anyone know how this turned out? Or is it still going on?

 

I don't believe a ruling is expected for a few months correct? Man I sure hope Bob wins this one!!!! Give'em hell Bob!