Video Violence
"The Obama administration asked the (Supreme) Court to reinstate a...law that bans the production and sale of videos that show torture, mutilation and death of animals."
Washington Post, Oct. 7, 2009
This law had been stricken as unconstitutional by the US Court of Appeals, which invalidated the conviction of Robert Stevens of Virginia, who had been sentenced to three years in prison for making videos of pit-bull fights.
The US Humane Society and other groups sympathetic to animals have supported the law, while civil liberties groups consider it an infringement on the rights of free expression.
I am totally opposed to dog-fights, and support the tough laws that imprison those people (like football player Michael Vick) who arrange them. I also abhor bull-fights, which are legal in most Hispanic countries, although not in the United States. All cruelty to animals is morally wrong.
Yet the law in question punishes the video maker, not the persons responsible for the dog-fight. As I see it, the First Amendment right to "freedom of the press" covers videos and photos, and the framers of the Bill of Rights made no exceptions for depictions of cruelty. I understand that courts have upheld restrictions on child pornography, but I considers those rulings questionable as well.
The truth is that the Internet is full of videos of fights between people, including children. (1) Although the adults involved are presumed to have consented to participate in these violent activities, the children (like animals) involved are considered by law to be too young to consent. If the law under which Stevens was convicted is held valid, the government could then ban videos of children fighting as well.
Questions raised by the Justices during argument of this case indicate that the Supreme Court will uphold the Circuit Court's finding that the law is an infringement on freedom of speech and of the press. Most likely, the ruling will be a narrow one, declaring that the law is too broad and does not clearly delineate the conduct prohibited. Such a ruling would not threaten other legal restrictions on pornography, obscenity, vulgarity and the like.
Following the lead of the late Justice Hugo Black, I would prefer a stronger decision on the side of free expression. But I will take whatever protection the Court will provide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) For example, Google " kid fights", "boy fights" or "girl fights".
Washington Post, Oct. 7, 2009
This law had been stricken as unconstitutional by the US Court of Appeals, which invalidated the conviction of Robert Stevens of Virginia, who had been sentenced to three years in prison for making videos of pit-bull fights.
The US Humane Society and other groups sympathetic to animals have supported the law, while civil liberties groups consider it an infringement on the rights of free expression.
I am totally opposed to dog-fights, and support the tough laws that imprison those people (like football player Michael Vick) who arrange them. I also abhor bull-fights, which are legal in most Hispanic countries, although not in the United States. All cruelty to animals is morally wrong.
Yet the law in question punishes the video maker, not the persons responsible for the dog-fight. As I see it, the First Amendment right to "freedom of the press" covers videos and photos, and the framers of the Bill of Rights made no exceptions for depictions of cruelty. I understand that courts have upheld restrictions on child pornography, but I considers those rulings questionable as well.
The truth is that the Internet is full of videos of fights between people, including children. (1) Although the adults involved are presumed to have consented to participate in these violent activities, the children (like animals) involved are considered by law to be too young to consent. If the law under which Stevens was convicted is held valid, the government could then ban videos of children fighting as well.
Questions raised by the Justices during argument of this case indicate that the Supreme Court will uphold the Circuit Court's finding that the law is an infringement on freedom of speech and of the press. Most likely, the ruling will be a narrow one, declaring that the law is too broad and does not clearly delineate the conduct prohibited. Such a ruling would not threaten other legal restrictions on pornography, obscenity, vulgarity and the like.
Following the lead of the late Justice Hugo Black, I would prefer a stronger decision on the side of free expression. But I will take whatever protection the Court will provide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) For example, Google " kid fights", "boy fights" or "girl fights".
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 10:14 AM
1 Comments:
Yes, the less government in our lives the better. We do not need the nanny state taking care of us we just need the government to get out of our way.
We would be much better off with legalization of all vices and all personal behaviors as long as it does not hurt anyone else.
So we need the legalization of drugs, sex, gambling, movies, etc.
Post a Comment
<< Home