Supreme Court On The Hunt
Here's an interesting article in Slate by Dahlia Lithwick about the opening-day Supreme Court case on banning videos that have animal cruelty. Lithwick (if I'm reading her right) doesn't think the government has much of a case. Animal cruelty can be criminalized, but overbroad legislation preventing dissemination of otherwise protected speech is another matter.
I tend to agree. I don't know how the Court will vote, but there's a (thankfully) long history of cases that find statutes unconstitutional when they're passed by an overeager Congress hoping to ban yet another type of speech.
These pieces of legislation are usually popular. That's why Congress goes for the easy fixes. And that's why we have a Bill of Rights when they do. What it also means is if you want to fight for the First Amendment, you're going to see a lot of repulsive stuff. The popular stuff doesn't need protection.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:31 AM
3 Comments:
As opposed to, say, the Commerce Clause, where anything goes. Or, doesn't go, as the case may be.
GoSWMBCgn
There's a remarkably offensive display of (purportedly) aborted fetus pictures that a guy puts up on the corner of 42nd & 6th in Manhattan. I've gotten really angry at him when I've forgotten about it and walked past with my young daughter, but never did it occur to me that he should be banned by statute.
The NY legislature would probably try to ban him, but they're too busy thinking up brilliant legislation like bans on using iPods while crossing the street.
Post a Comment
<< Home