Supreme Court To Hear Animal Sex Fetish Case; "Crush Videos," Dogfighting Footage May Be Treated Like Child Porn

Newsweek:

Kittens, brutality, fetish videos, and dogfighting--these aren't the elements of a twisted cable-television show; they're just some of the factors in one of Tuesday's U.S. Supreme Court cases that will kick off the court's new term. The court will hear the federal government's appeal of U.S. v. Stevens, a circuit court's overturning of a 1999 federal law that makes it a crime to create, sell, or possess depictions of animal cruelty for commercial gain.

Read the whole story: Newsweek

Comments

[brady61995]

yes its a cruel world we live in. freedom of speach does not cover torturing animals. its very unfortunate that the justice system has no spine

[Aerows]

"While animals . . . [are] worthy of human kindness and human care, one cannot seriously contend that the animals themselves suffer continuing harm by having their images out in the marketplac­e.""

Excuse me? Filming animals for profit doesn't encourage animals to come to harm? They killed the animals - on tape. Is killing living creatures suddenly not causing them harm? What an ugly precedent; it's claiming that it's okay to commit crimes as long as it is being filmed, because it is protected by freedom of speech. That's insanity.

More animals will certainly suffer if this is allowed to continue. This doesn't encourage less violence to occur, it encourages more of it to occur, and next time it may be against a human.

[dancucich]

This is a crime against society in that it hardens
people as they become desensitized.

I cant understand why a majority of the Justices (including sotomayor)
think its ok to depict something that its illegal in and of itself,
(animal cruelty) on the
grounds its just "speech" or "reportage".

(Let me "report" to you (for money) some of the most depraved and
illegal acts i have witnessed.­..Enjoy!) thats protected speech:
but pornography is not protected. what a bunch of amoral dolts!

from their questions, Sotomayor, Scalia, Roberts and Breyer
seem to think this should be protected 'free speech"

Roberts and Scalia said oulawing these videos would
not reduce animal cruelty. Incredible! Of course it would!!
if they cant market the videos they are less likely to do it

Samuel Alito (of all people) was the only justice
to express disapproval of these videos. Makes me think
much better of him. He was appalled by the animals being
stomped to death.

I am sorry I supported Sotomayor. What a disappointment:
she said she sees no distinction between suppressing these videos
and supressing journalism".

[Aerows]

Where did you see that she said she sees no distinction between suppressing these videos and suppressing journalism? They haven't even heard the case yet.

You need to cite your source if you are going to make that claim.

[dancucich]

Aerows, they most certainly have heard the oral arguments. Huff po is chock full of articles describing the arguments and the justices comments.

here is a link to one of several Sotomayor remarks where she likens
dog fight videos to documentary journalism:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/10/supeme_court_seems_set_to_kill.html

Look for Justce Sotomayor to vote in favor of the crush vids in the name of free speech.

[defyinggravity]

These "crush films" are NOT/SHOULD NOT be protected by the first amendment, in the same way child pornography isn't.

[Aerows]

What they are doing is breaking the law. I was under the impression that you can say whatever you like, and depict violence, but that you can't film actual violence. How is it suddenly "freedom of speech" to commit a crime?

That's like saying child molestation is just fine as long as you are taping it. It's a ridiculous and dangerous argument. Extremely bad precedent to set.

[brady61995]

agreed, its very sick and not needed

[Dianekkdi]

"One Abuser, Two Victims
When 9-year-old Beth* was sexually abused by her stepfather, she told the prosecuting attorney someone else knew about it -- but he couldn’t talk. She was referring to her beloved cat, Oreo.
Beth explained that Oreo would bravely lie outside her door at night and hiss whenever her attacker appeared. In trying to protect her, the loyal cat also became another victim of violence; Beth’s stepfather would always brutally kick Oreo away from the door.
Beth’s revelation gave the prosecutor an idea. She had Oreo examined by a veterinarian. The results were chilling. Oreo had sustained injuries consistent with being physically abused.
When the prosecutor submitted the veterinarian’s report to the jury as evidence showing a pattern of violence in the home, Beth’s allegations gained credibility. In a way, Oreo was able to testify, convincing the jury that the traumatized little girl had been telling the truth.
Beth’s stepfather was convicted and received a long prison sentence. ....
The prosecutor, Allie Phillips, now works for American Humane as VP of our Public Policy Office. We conduct trainings for attorneys, judges, veterinarians, social workers, domestic-violence counselors and other social services providers on what American Humane calls The Link® between violence to people and violence to animals, increasing awareness of the powerful role it can play in unmasking and preventing abuse.
It’s a vital message -- ...stop the cycle of violence affecting innocent people and animals alike..."
-an abridged email from the AmericanHu­maneSociet­y-

[AmbientDiscord]

i understand that people who do this to animals are on their way to becoming a sociopath but i have a hard time justifying the destruction or censorship of a record because the act that went into it was detestable.

--and i have accidentally opened a page showing all kinds of pictures of the kitten crushing which made my squeamish for a few days - this should at least be treated as adult content but if you start destroying things like this, it starts to justify other forms of censorship and destruction of "evidence" / data.

obviously it is not the same thing as burning CIA interrogation tapes where the suspects are killed... but it leads us in that direction.

[Aerows]

It's illegal to do this in the first place, what makes you think filming it suddenly makes it free speech? It's crime. Fake violence is one thing, that is covered with free speech. Real violence is against the law.

Filming acts of animal cruelty encourages more animal cruelty to be committed. You are free to make any kind of movie you want to make, but you are not free to break the law while doing it.

[SquealingPig]

I think if we Crush the Skulls of a few of these Sicko Producers it may blunt production
Televise it and have Simon Cowell appraise the outcome . . I will watch

[seroquel]

You know, there is something inherently wrong with people who would watch these videos. There is something definitely wrong when this is even up for consideration of being obscene.
I see nothing wrong with making people who watch, make, contribute to this detestable behavior put away for life. And if you kill an animal? On video? For pleasure purposes? Or profit? Death.
This is the same as showing a snuff film. Animal or human, it's immoral, and obscene.
I don't count those undercover videos of corporations using inhumane methods to make animals into food. I don't think we need to have steaks and chicken available everywhere at any time.
No I'm not a vegetarian, I like meat every now and then.
I just don't think it needs to be mass produced.

[Tyler-Durden]

who overturned the law and made it legal? let's crush THEM. no wait, let's have dogs tear them apart!

The appeals court said this: "While animals . . . [are] worthy of human kindness and human care, one cannot seriously contend that the animals themselves suffer continuing harm by having their images out in the marketplac­e."

they don't believe the animals suffer continuing harm...unl­ess you consider depriving them of THEIR LIVES a continuous harm, (i do) but the CRITICAL HARM ISN'T TO ANIMALS, IT'S TO HUMANITY.

are we civilized or not? should we establish boundaries for ourselves or not? shouldn't killing a living thing strictly for entertainment be beyond the boundaries of civilized behavior???

[Celebrindan]

Absolutely.

Only those with severely limited mental capacity could or would consider otherwise.

The incredible lack of compassion, perception and observation that allowes someone like Michael Vick back into professional sports shows how degraded, how crippled our national conscience has become.

'Entertainment' is not license to reach the edges of the envelope, where the despicable and horrific make fodder of the weak for the jollies of the wicked and perverse.

[lisaman]

I would like the people who took this case to court to be front and center on the news. I am personally appalled! And sickened!

[celere]

To let it be legal is to give it a measure of approval. Society should not even tacitly condone the appetite for viewing acts of torture and/or murder. Making, selling, and possessing such videos should be an offense punishable by law.

[Rubyfoo]

Don't know much about law, but this is the moral equivalent of Roman's watching lions eat Christians. Is this what we want to allow?

[VPN]

Make that Lyons and republickers and I am in.

[Brothaman2k]

Yeah... No, it isn't. Christians are HUMAN BEINGS. (Save the aetheistic vitriol, whether you like or agree with what the believe doesn't do a thing to negate my point). Dogs and cats, while living beings, are not human beings. Stomping animals to death is no doubt a disgusting act that couldn't fathom or even being able to do, but this ridiculous equivication that animals and humans are the same is just annoying.

People who make and watch videos like these are concerning, but not because of what they do to the animals, but because of what it indicates about their personalities. Animal cruelty is a tell tale sign of serial killers or just plain sociopaths. Animal cruelty is wrong, but the real focus should be on the people involved, not because they were mean to kitties and puppies, but because of what that kind of cruelty indicates they might be willing to do to other people.

[seroquel]

I think you have just proven that you are not human.
As for aetheistic vitrol, you bringing up a Christian viewpoint is going to guarantee that.
If there is any religion that advocates this kind of abuse or tries to excuse it is one that deserves to be driven out with the flat earth theory.

[steve-annie]

"... not because of what they do to the animals...­." Are you kidding?! Your other concerns are valid, but I have met plenty of so-called "christians" who deserve to die more than any animal I've met. And I am not an atheist, a vegan or a member of PETA.

[Aerows]

Allowing these films to be made and watched condones them. They encourage others to make and watch them. They encourage people to be cruel to animals and people. I'm not prepared to condone such activities by excusing it.

[BebeLush]

Christ, I wonder some times if I'm actually living amongst human beings.

[lisaman]

Wow, I know how you feel!

[steve-annie]

Makes me wonder whether I WANT to live amongst human beings.

[joanno]

There is well documented evidence that animal abuse is frequently a precursor of violence towards humans. I hope that is part of the court record.

[Cacaoatl]

The word "obscene" come from the Latin for "foul, detestable, repulsive" violence and cruelty towards animals certainly qualifies as those. In fact cruelty towards animals is the moral equivalent of cruelty towards children, or making child porn. The perpetrator is taking advantage of a defenseless creature in the same way a pedophile does.

[swanie]

As a famous priest said:

"If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures

from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have

men who will deal likewise with their fellow men..."

St. Francis of Assisi

.

[GirlUsingBrain]

St. Francis was a huge animal advocate and protector and he used to preach to the animals. Although I am not catholic and I am not religious I have always admired St. Francis. I studied him in college ... in a medieval literature class.