Supreme Court Shot Down Animal Cruelty Video Law

[gar-dog]

I remember seeing some discussion and concern on the forum over a federal law banning videos showing animal cruelty. There was a fear that hunting or dog training videos or shows could come under fire. The law was intended to stop certain fetish videos where women crush small animals with their feet. But the case at hand involved a guy who had a video of a pit bull fight. The court shot down the law, on first Amendment grounds, saying the law was too far overreaching. It suggested that a law specifically banning these so-called crush-videos would be more appropriate.

Anyway, this was a good ruling by the court!

Cheers,
Gary

[SubMariner]

I remember seeing some discussion and concern on the forum over a federal law banning videos showing animal cruelty. There was a fear that hunting or dog training videos or shows could come under fire. The law was intended to stop certain fetish videos where women crush small animals with their feet. But the case at hand involved a guy who had a video of a pit bull fight. The court shot down the law, on first Amendment grounds, saying the law was too far overreaching. It suggested that a law specifically banning these so-called crush-videos would be more appropriate.

Anyway, this was a good ruling by the court!

Cheers,
Gary

So you think that dog fights & filming them/showing the video is ok? Because that's what it appears you are doing!

[volraider]

Finally the Supreme Court is showing some common sense.

[Wagonmaster]

So you think that dog fights & filming them/showing the video is ok? Because that's what it appears you are doing!

No, it is not. The law as written had no boundaries, and as the Court pointed out in its opinion, would have banned hunting videos in municipalities where hunting is illegal (such as Washington D.C.). An overly zealous prosecutor, and there are lots of those around these days, could have used it against dog training videos in which game is shot. It was a PETA law in disguise. No one on this forum, and particularly not the Court, is in favor of allowing "crush videos." But outlawing "crush videos" should not be an excuse for outlawing lawful activities, such as hunting, fishing, and dog training. The decision was the right thing, and sends the issue back to the legislature to write a clear law. It was an instance of a legislature using a clearly wrong activity as an excuse to prosecute activities that the animal rights people do not agree with. Bad legislature, bad!

[gar-dog]

Wagonmaster, thank you. I do not support dog fighting.

[ezzy333]

So you think that dog fights & filming them/showing the video is ok? Because that's what it appears you are doing!

No, it is not. The law as written had no boundaries, and as the Court pointed out in its opinion, would have banned hunting videos in municipalities where hunting is illegal (such as Washington D.C.). An overly zealous prosecutor, and there are lots of those around these days, could have used it against dog training videos in which game is shot. It was a PETA law in disguise. No one on this forum, and particularly not the Court, is in favor of allowing "crush videos." But outlawing "crush videos" should not be an excuse for outlawing lawful activities, such as hunting, fishing, and dog training. The decision was the right thing, and sends the issue back to the legislature to write a clear law. It was an instance of a legislature using a clearly wrong activity as an excuse to prosecute activities that the animal rights people do not agree with. Bad legislature, bad!

Exactly right! But it demonstrates how easily it is for people to be mislead when they don't consider all of the ramifications of some of the broadly written laws that are becoming more common everyday. Hopefully they will go back and write it properly but don't bet on it as it was the animal rights people who wanted it written in very broad terms. And if it isn't then they won't be so concerned to have it redone.

Ezzy

[Wagonmaster]

Agreed. The spin on it in the media is that the Supreme Court struck down a law banning "crush videos" as free speech, and that is not what the Court did. Here is from the Court's opinion:

Moreover, §48 applies to any depiction of conduct that is illegal in the State in which the depiction is created, sold, or possessed, “regardless of whether the . . . wounding . . . or killing took place” there, §48(c)(1). Depictions of entirely lawful conduct may run afoul of the ban if those depictions later find their way into States where the same conduct is unlawful. This greatly expands §48’s scope, because views about animal cruelty and regulations having no connection to cruelty vary widely from place to place. Hunting is unlawful in the District of Columbia, for example, but there is an enormous national market for hunting-related depictions, greatly exceeding the demand for crush videos or animal fighting depictions. Because the statute allows each jurisdiction to export its laws to the rest of the country, §48(a) applies to any magazine or video depicting lawful hunting that is sold in the Nation’s Capital. Those seeking to comply with the law face a bewildering maze of regulations from at least 56 separate jurisdictions.

[Greg Jennings]

And that is why it is so great to have forums like this where experts in different fields can provide information.

I just can't remember how I got along before the web.

[Wagonmaster]

Oh, heck, we know what you were up to. You were sitting in your workshop "miking" things to the tenth, and muttering to yourself. Now you can sit in your den and punch keys instead! And I get to look stuff up online on Westlaw and pretend I know stuff. Much more fun.

[gar-dog]

And that is why it is so great to have forums like this where experts in different fields can provide information.

I just can't remember how I got along before the web.

Just wait until you get an iPad like me.... a total game changer!!!! How have I lived all these years???????????

[Wagonmaster]

Hey, not to change the subject or anything, but how do you like that thing? I have been thinking about getting the 3G one to store and review approach plates, which are the maps we use to do an instrument approach for landing (aircraft). It needs to be bright and readable even in the daylight, and good resolution for these old eyes.

And of course it will allow me to stay current with Gun Dog Forum and the discussion concerning the Sup. Ct.'s opinin in the Stevens case, so the mods don't get mad at me for going too far afield.

Oh, and the title of this thread is just wrong. It should be Supreme Court Shot Down Law Prohibiting the Sale of Hunting, Fishing, and Dog Training Videos.

[gar-dog]

The iPad is a little tricky with sun glare, to be quite honest. But it is the most perfect, lightning fast from app to app, handy little piece of technology I have every dealt with!

I didn't get 3G, but carry a sprint wifi hotspot card instead. it is the size of a credit card, and when the button is pressed it creates a wifi hotspot for up to five connections. On a roadtrip with the family everyone is hooked up.

[Wagonmaster]

Thanks for the pirep (pilot report), and now, back to our regularly scheduled argument... er....animated and cordial discussion.