Taking Rights Seriously
Wow, talk about internal conflict. My civil libertarian head loves this ruling as much as my dog-loving heart hates it. Well, they say your commitment to the First Amendment is measured by whether you would protect the speech you hate most, so I guess I have to be happy I passed the test.
posted by QueensGuy @ 7:35 AM
5 Comments:
It seems to me it is possible to craft a statute that works. The S.Ct struck down the statute because it was grossly overbroad. The video in question, I believe, was marketed to people who like pit bulls, but the cruel footage wasn't staged for the film, so the sale of the video shouldn't have been illegal. I think the court considered whether the statute could be reinterpreted to make it constitutional, but decided it was just too poorly drafted. What a surprise.
The law should say that selling images of illegal activities involving cruelty to animals is illegal as part of the underlying illegal activity. Meanwhile, I will continue to enjoy Weasel Stomping.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k76IGLi6jWI
The original statute was created to stop "crush" videos, but wasn't being used for the purpose. A gtood example of the sort of mission creep you can expect when you write overbroad statues that deal with free expression.
Maybe the ASPCA will get involved in the confirmation hearings. I mean I saw the PETA people protesting the Shriners this week-end- why not go after this circus too?
Yawn. Call me when they say child porn is oaky-dokey, just not abusing children. That'll be a first amendment holding that it'll burn down the house.
Anon, you're right. That would be a real First Amendment purist's dream ruling. You want to claim separation of speech from conduct? That's the way to show you mean it. Anything short of that is intellectually inconsistent. Of course, if you were looking for the general public to revolt against the supreme court, that would also be the way to provoke it.
Post a Comment
<< Home