God'sLittleAnus
2009-10-05 18:11:13 UTC
Uncle Thomas, Scurrilous Scalia, Lotta-Shit Alito, Righty Roberts, and
Kooky Kennedy ...
Let's hope these openly anti-Obama douche-bags don't fail the thinking
public like they did in the Court's recent Second Amendment misruling!
-------------
Editorial
The Washington Post
Monday, Oct. 5, 2009
"Dogs, Videos and Violence"
"The Supreme Court takes up a case that pits free speech against a law
meant to protect animals."
Monday, October 5, 2009
DEPENDING ON whom you ask, Robert J. Stevens is either an avowed
canine enthusiast and educational filmmaker or a man who traffics in
the misery and violence of dogfights.
Mr. Stevens produces videos that he says are meant to instruct owners
on how to train pit bulls to ward off predators, such as coyotes, and
assist in legal hunting activities. Some of the videos also focus on
the history of the pit bull breed and include footage of dogfights.
In 2004, Mr. Stevens ran afoul of a federal law that prohibits the
sale or possession for "commercial gain" of material that depicts
living animals being "intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured,
wounded, or killed." The statute was passed in the last year of the
Clinton administration and was meant to target "crush videos," in
which women in high heels crush small animals to death for the sexual
titillation of viewers. But in the 10 years of its existence, the law
has been applied only three times and only against those with some
nexus to dog fighting.
Mr. Stevens was convicted, despite a provision in the law that exempts
from prosecution material that has "serious religious, political,
scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value."
The conviction rocked media groups and hunting organizations -- and
with good reason.
Although the law has been used sparingly, it leaves in the hands of
the government the power to criminalize speech that is either
unpopular or offensive. It is written so broadly that it could be used
to chill or even ensnare legitimate newsgathering exercises or put in
legal jeopardy those who capture hunting expeditions on tape.
The exemption, which is meant to legally cure these problems, is
clearly not effective. During Mr. Stevens's trial, for example, the
jury was instructed that only work that was "significant and of great
import" could be considered "serious" and thus eligible for the
exemption.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the Stevens case Tuesday. The
court has long resisted allowing the government more say on what
constitutes appropriate speech. It has made rare exceptions only if
the law in question is narrowly tailored and aimed at achieving a
compelling government interest, such as protecting children from
sexual exploitation by banning the sale or possession of child
pornography. The law in the Stevens case meets neither of these two
standards and should be struck down.
Some 46 states have felony laws on the books prohibiting malicious
acts of animal cruelty; dog fighting is a felony in all 50 states.
These laws should be actively enforced, thereby bringing abusers to
justice without risking the erosion of free-speech rights.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/04/AR2009100402301.html
Kooky Kennedy ...
Let's hope these openly anti-Obama douche-bags don't fail the thinking
public like they did in the Court's recent Second Amendment misruling!
-------------
Editorial
The Washington Post
Monday, Oct. 5, 2009
"Dogs, Videos and Violence"
"The Supreme Court takes up a case that pits free speech against a law
meant to protect animals."
Monday, October 5, 2009
DEPENDING ON whom you ask, Robert J. Stevens is either an avowed
canine enthusiast and educational filmmaker or a man who traffics in
the misery and violence of dogfights.
Mr. Stevens produces videos that he says are meant to instruct owners
on how to train pit bulls to ward off predators, such as coyotes, and
assist in legal hunting activities. Some of the videos also focus on
the history of the pit bull breed and include footage of dogfights.
In 2004, Mr. Stevens ran afoul of a federal law that prohibits the
sale or possession for "commercial gain" of material that depicts
living animals being "intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured,
wounded, or killed." The statute was passed in the last year of the
Clinton administration and was meant to target "crush videos," in
which women in high heels crush small animals to death for the sexual
titillation of viewers. But in the 10 years of its existence, the law
has been applied only three times and only against those with some
nexus to dog fighting.
Mr. Stevens was convicted, despite a provision in the law that exempts
from prosecution material that has "serious religious, political,
scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value."
The conviction rocked media groups and hunting organizations -- and
with good reason.
Although the law has been used sparingly, it leaves in the hands of
the government the power to criminalize speech that is either
unpopular or offensive. It is written so broadly that it could be used
to chill or even ensnare legitimate newsgathering exercises or put in
legal jeopardy those who capture hunting expeditions on tape.
The exemption, which is meant to legally cure these problems, is
clearly not effective. During Mr. Stevens's trial, for example, the
jury was instructed that only work that was "significant and of great
import" could be considered "serious" and thus eligible for the
exemption.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the Stevens case Tuesday. The
court has long resisted allowing the government more say on what
constitutes appropriate speech. It has made rare exceptions only if
the law in question is narrowly tailored and aimed at achieving a
compelling government interest, such as protecting children from
sexual exploitation by banning the sale or possession of child
pornography. The law in the Stevens case meets neither of these two
standards and should be struck down.
Some 46 states have felony laws on the books prohibiting malicious
acts of animal cruelty; dog fighting is a felony in all 50 states.
These laws should be actively enforced, thereby bringing abusers to
justice without risking the erosion of free-speech rights.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/04/AR2009100402301.html