TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › 1st Amendment vs. profit from animal abuse for entertainment
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

1st Amendment vs. profit from animal abuse for entertainment

post #1 of 14
9/23/09 at 11:01am
Thread Starter 
Supreme Court to weigh depictions of animal cruelty

Quote:
The Supreme Court has often said that freedom of speech includes ugly and foul language. But this fall the justices will be looking at video clips like these to decide whether selling films of dogfights or animal torture is protected from prosecution under the 1st Amendment.

The dispute, expected to be heard in early October, has driven a wedge between traditional free-speech advocates and defenders of the humane treatment of animals.

Book publishers, movie makers, photographers, artists and journalists have joined the case on the side of a Virginia man who was convicted of selling videos of dogfights. They argue that any new exception to the 1st Amendment, no matter how laudable the goal, poses a danger to free expression.
The U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia struck down a federal law against selling videos of live animals being abused
because it believes such videos are covered by "freedom of speech"!
Is this a perversion of the Bill of Rights?
Reply
post #2 of 14
9/23/09 at 11:11am
Animal cruelty is against the law. The people who are in these films and who profit from these films should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Reply
post #3 of 14
9/23/09 at 3:49pm
As far as I know, snuff films are illegal. I see no difference between the torture and killing of humans and the torture and killing of animals.
Reply
post #4 of 14
9/23/09 at 6:18pm
Wow are you serious?!?!? Animal cruelty is not a form of free speech!! Hurting someone or an animal is against the law. How is animal abuse entertainment?? Animals dont willing say "yes I want to be abused!". I am just shocked by this...
Reply
post #5 of 14
9/23/09 at 6:26pm
Where does one draw the line? Will animal cruelty be strictly defined? Animal rights radicals opine that hunting is animal cruelty. No more hunting instructional videos? Videotape of show Dobermans (cropped ears, docked tails)? How many amendments will be provided to allow for "normal" animal videos (that the AR's like to define as "cruelty")? This opens a huge can of worms and is just another, apparently benign, yet a small step towards the animal rights agenda. Step carefully........
Reply
post #6 of 14
9/23/09 at 7:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allmycats View Post
Where does one draw the line? Will animal cruelty be strictly defined? Animal rights radicals opine that hunting is animal cruelty. No more hunting instructional videos? Videotape of show Dobermans (cropped ears, docked tails)? How many amendments will be provided to allow for "normal" animal videos (that the AR's like to define as "cruelty")? This opens a huge can of worms and is just another, apparently benign, yet a small step towards the animal rights agenda. Step carefully........
I see what you are saying. But there is a big difference between showing a video of how to kill an animal for food (and most hunters do it for that...not all, and I don't agree with the ones that just take the trophies and not the meat) and showing two dogs in the ring trying to kill each other. Dogfighting is illegal, hunting is not.
Reply
post #7 of 14
9/23/09 at 10:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by calico2222 View Post
I see what you are saying. But there is a big difference between showing a video of how to kill an animal for food (and most hunters do it for that...not all, and I don't agree with the ones that just take the trophies and not the meat) and showing two dogs in the ring trying to kill each other. Dogfighting is illegal, hunting is not.
I agree 100%. I mean think of that video that was on youtube...where a cat was used as bait to a dog....it was horrifying....think of that on dvds for children or anyone to see. ....it just makes me sick.
Reply
post #8 of 14
9/24/09 at 4:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by calico2222 View Post
I see what you are saying. But there is a big difference between showing a video of how to kill an animal for food (and most hunters do it for that...not all, and I don't agree with the ones that just take the trophies and not the meat) and showing two dogs in the ring trying to kill each other. Dogfighting is illegal, hunting is not.
Yes, there is a big difference...and that was my point Where WILL the line be drawn and will there be definitions? Keep in mind our "czar" Sunstein..quote "Hunting ought to be banned!"
Reply
post #9 of 14
9/25/09 at 7:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by abbycats View Post
Animal cruelty is against the law. The people who are in these films and who profit from these films should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
EXACTLY.. This is sick. SICK. It disgusts me that animal cruelty could be considered anything but immoral and wrong and sick. There is no way around it.

Next they will be saying "we have the right to express ourselves through the act of child molestation". Same load of twisted garbage.
Reply
post #10 of 14
9/27/09 at 10:33pm
I thought this would be kind of a no-brainer...there are laws on the books against animal cruelty, and surely there's some kind of decency law in most if not all jurisdictions against distributing materials celebrating illegal acts for entertainment value only (call it a form of "prurient interest" since I believe that's the language often used). This ain't rocket surgery.
Reply
post #11 of 14
9/28/09 at 3:10pm
This should be the same as child pornography, I don't see how it's any different. If child pornography can be illegal so should videos of animal fights.
Reply
post #12 of 14
9/28/09 at 5:02pm
Last I heard snuff films weren't counted as free speach.
Reply
post #13 of 14
9/29/09 at 11:43am
Interesting topic - the Supremes have to rely on the legal issues brought before them when making their decision - tough one - will be watching to see how they decide this one.

People's sense of decency is becoming so calloused that eventually the word "moral" will no longer be in our modern dictionary.
Reply
post #14 of 14
9/30/09 at 11:30am
Hey Circuit Court of Appeals, if you're reading this, are you f%&#&g insane? You exist to better the nation, which means helping to make it as safe as you can, etc. perhaps you need "the people" (that means us, the sane/kind/humane people of the nation) to bombard you with the below

Quote:
Understanding The Link® Between Animal Abuse and Family Violence
What Is The Link?
A correlation between animal abuse, family violence and other forms of community violence has been established. Child and animal protection professionals have recognized this link, noting that abuse of both children and animals is connected in a self-perpetuating cycle of violence. When animals in a home are abused or neglected, it is a warning sign that others in the household may not be safe. In addition, children who witness animal abuse are at a greater risk of becoming abusers themselves. More information at the source (americanhumane.org): http://tinyurl.com/ck5tf8

Do you think these evil-doers worship the devil? I'm guessing a lot do. And if they were to say "freedom of religion" all we'd need to do is quote the Bible to remind us the devil is the master of lies. Therefore we can easily conclude any "religion" where the devil is central is destructive to the nation because the religion worships lies lies lies ..... in court, we are required to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. therefore, religions that encourage lying are harmful to the nation.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › 1st Amendment vs. profit from animal abuse for entertainment