Dog Fight Videos Are Free Speech

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i'm surprised there was a dissent. this was a no brainer for anyone with a basic understanding that freedom of speech also means freedom of speech you hate.

nothing in this case endorses animal cruelty. the acts depicted in dog fight and crush video's remain illegal in all states. they've simply ruled not to add speech which depicts animal cruelty to the short list of speech that isn't protected by the 1st amendment.

the ruling also left an open door to congress. it said the 1999 law was over broad. a narrowly defined law specifically targeting dog fight and crush video's may be constitutional.

in then interim, you no longer need to worry about posting that video of your neighbor killing a snake.

Why would the freedom of speech argument apply to this but not to child pornography?

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Why would the freedom of speech argument apply to this but not to child pornography?

i don't know. you'd have to ask the justices who made that ruling.

i thought the obscenity decision was a reach. and although you're now still free post a video of your daughter stepping on a spider, you better be sure there's nothing of prurient interest to any imaginable pervert in the way she's dressed.

i get that defamation isn't a first amendment right. i think the child porn decision is problematic.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Why would the freedom of speech argument apply to this but not to child pornography?

The justices Tuesday concluded the scope and intent of the decade-old statute was overly broad.

"The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh its costs," said Chief Justice John Roberts. He concluded Congress had not sufficiently shown "depictions" of dogfighting were enough to justify a special category of exclusion from free speech protection.





If the law had been upheld, it would have been only the second time the Supreme Court had identified a form of speech undeserving of protection by the First Amendment. The justices in 1982 banned the distribution of child pornography

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Danzig

The justices Tuesday concluded the scope and intent of the decade-old statute was overly broad.

"The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh its costs," said Chief Justice John Roberts. He concluded Congress had not sufficiently shown "depictions" of dogfighting were enough to justify a special category of exclusion from free speech protection.





If the law had been upheld, it would have been only the second time the Supreme Court had identified a form of speech undeserving of protection by the First Amendment. The justices in 1982 banned the distribution of child pornography

other than defamation and the earlier obscenity rulings.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

other than defamation and the earlier obscenity rulings.

i think they mean that child porn is the only 'free speech' that doesn't have restrictions, but is completely banned. you have to prove defamation, obscenity-but it's pretty cut and dried what is child porn.