Comments:US Supreme Court overturns ban on videos depicting animal cruelty
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|As trackers||2||02:35, 29 May 2016|
|Comments from feedback form - "What do you think of this page..."||0||21:02, 23 April 2010|
|The holding in Chaplinsky should be abandoned||0||05:33, 22 April 2010|
|The intention of the author should count||0||15:05, 21 April 2010|
|Comments from feedback form - "Though it sickens me, I agree ..."||1||12:51, 21 April 2010|
This would actually make the sick bastards a bit easier to track down, yes? No? I'm specifically thinking of Dusty (for great justice), but no doubt there's other situations where it's happened.
It's unlikely, because most of this sort of content is produced in other jurisdictions (or even times) where enforcement is more lax or laws do not prohibit the depicted acts. This was the case for the dogfights in the videos at the root of this case. I support the court's ruling, mind, but I think it's best defended on principled, ideological grounds. The thing about pragmatic benefits of upholding liberty is that, even where they do exist, circumstances are always subject to change. If we find that freedom no longer has an objective benefit in situation X, should we disregard the freedom or uphold it on principle? If it's to be upheld on principle, then it's more parsimonious to invoke that than to mire oneself in irrelevant minutiae.
The laws are biased and total hypocratic:for Animals are just food for the myraids/masses:How can any one be cruel to food/nutrition/diet?,besides crampling for Obesity?,MAKE SENCE MR justice your worship. the concious objects this semantic ruling/judgement its Just Envy the obvius Master of evolution and politica myham.non excelence PRODUCT OF the hazing global world/universe! Hence no man is an island.(Dikgosi Sejabodile)
It was generally expected that the court would rule the law at issue unconstitutional, and I'm happy that they followed this expectation. The opinion, however, contains some unfortunate content. Most unfortunate, I think, is the affirmative citation of what should be a decrepit precedent: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. There is no reason for the category of "fighting words" established by that case to fall outside free speech protections. "Fighting words" are essentially just inflammatory statements made in the heat of the moment and intended to be confrontational. Chaplinsky seems to stand for the position that these words should be prohibited because the person hearing them might be prompted to a criminal act (assault upon the speaker). Freedom of speech should not be held hostage to some people's propensity for criminal behaviour, and it's insulting to the American people to assume that we have no facility for self-control, being prompted to violent acts as a mechanical consequence of the utterance of some verbal barbs. A human being is not like a magical door that takes some prescribed response to the utterance of "open sesame." Whatever reactions people choose to have to any given speech are just that — chosen. One person should not be subject to punishment by the government for actions freely elected by another individual. Those who do not refrain from aggressive violence are the ones rightfully to be punished.
I think that the intention of the author of a video should count. In my opinion, the dogfight videos should remain illegal by an other law that prohibits cruelty against animals, but on the other hand documentations about cruelty against animals, for example in factory farming, must be possible to be shown to the public.
Though it sickens me, I agree that the film should be legal. The action of harming these animals should be what is criminalized and harshly penalized. However, it opens up an avenue that other things, such as child pornography, might be, in turn, given the okay. After all, if they say video of a criminal act is okay, that video might become legal.
I find it really unlikely that any legislation will ever be introduced regarding legalizing child pornography, despite the precedent set by this case - for one, the tenets of CYA prohibit it. Any public figure who attempts to do so will almost certainly find themselves lynched before the day is done (and well-done at that).
I'm staunchly anti-censorship; I applaud this ruling because it's a welcome change from the mental standpoint of sacrificing liberty for safety that seems to be common in post-9/11 years. I also believe that politicians making decisions about what I can and can not watch is another step on the path to tyranny - even though I'd never watch something like this in the first place, that decision is mine and not my government's.