This doesn't even classify as Gen Nature Discussion (It's HORRIFIC)

[Donna]

Court ruling sparks animal cruelty concerns

SUBURBAN WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- They're called "crush" videos. Images depict women in high heels crushing and mutilating small animals to give viewers a thrill.


Such videos and images were considered illegal until a U.S Supreme Court ruling this week, which found them to be a form of free speech protected by the first amendment. WHAT, ARE THEY NUTS!

"It's one of the worst things you could ever watch," says Capt. Dave Walesky with Palm Beach County Animal Care and Control.

Walesky says there are laws on the books locally to prevent acts of cruelty in our area. But law enforcement had always depended upon the federal law to deal with people trying to sell images of those cruel acts.

"From what I'm being told from local law enforcement sources, there are people in Palm Beach County that are involved in this," says Walesky.

Given the court's ruling, Walesky and other animal control officials from around the state now plan to use a meeting they'd already scheduled for Friday in Polk County to discuss pushing for a state law banning such videos.  "The content of these is so horrific, that freedom of speech shouldn't even be an issue," says Walesky.

The high court case dealt with a Virginia man named Bob Stevens, who characterizes the videos as educational.

Free speech advocates like West Palm Beach civil liberties attorney James Green say while they don't condone what Stevens does, the court's 8-1 ruling was correct. "The court held that the reach of this law was just way too broad. It was not limited and could not be limited to just crush videos," says Green.

In response, local animal rights advocates say they'll join the Humane Society in its effort to pass a  more-narrowly-worded law specifically targeting such videos.

In the meantime, they fear that without such legislation cases of animal cruelty will increase. "'Because we can no longer rely on the federal law," says Walesky.

 

This is just sick. In the video, they show women in high heels playing with the baby rabbits and kittens with their foot....then well you know the rest. What's wrong with the system??   

[MAK]

     Totally and utterly disgusting!

[Annette]

  

[harrispen]

Why is distribution of child porn illegal but this is not? I'm confused by this. ???

Cindy

[Donna]

Why is distribution of child porn illegal but this is not? I'm confused by this. ???

Cindy

So am I...I just don't get it! FREE SPEECH...MY ... What's this world coming to. 

[Bobbie Ireland]

 

Certainly this is not what Thomas Jefferson et al. had in mind... We have to take "...under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance, but we can do this?! One despairs!

[Bobbie Ireland]

More info re this from today's ASPCA e-News... Further comment from me would not be helpful, I fear, esp in reference to 'frivolous cases'. Better to check the ASCPA website to see what we can do. There are also other topics on the site which are worthy of note...

http://www.aspca.org/news/tri-state/04-23-10.html#1

B.




Supreme Court Nixes Crush Act as Unconstitutional

In its Tuesday ruling on U.S. v. Stevens, the U.S. Supreme Court permanently struck down the “Crush Act,� a 1999 federal law banning the creation, sale and possession of materials depicting genuine acts of animal cruelty. In the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the court attributed its decision to the law being both unconstitutional and overbroad.

The Crush Act was designed to stop the commerce of crush videos and other depictions of illegal acts of animal cruelty “in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed.� The act depicted did not have to be illegal where it was filmed, only where the resulting product was sold. Stevens, who marketed videos of dog and hog-dog fighting—some of which he filmed overseas—was the first person convicted under the Crush Act.

In addition to violating free speech rights, the Court asserted that, due to its overbroad language, the Crush Act could be used to prosecute frivolous cases. An example it cited was the sale of hunting videos: hunting is illegal in Washington, D.C., so under the Crush Act, someone selling a hunting video in D.C. would be breaking the law, even if the video was filmed in a state where hunting is legal. When he signed the bill into law, President Clinton recognized this potentially sticky issue and requested the Justice Department to limit prosecutions to “wanton cruelty to animals designed to appeal to a prurient interest in sex.� However, in the opinion of the Court, “We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the Government promised to use it responsibly.�

Although this verdict is disappointing, there is good news on the horizon. The Supreme Court left the door wide open for new, more narrowly drafted legislation to specifically target crush and animal fighting videos—and there is already interest on Capitol Hill in getting such legislation passed. The ASPCA will gladly work with Congress to draft new language that can withstand tests of constitutionality to provide law enforcement with the tools to effectively combat extreme animal abuse.

Action Tip: To help enact state and national laws that protect animals from abuse, join our online Advocacy Brigade. It’s free and lets you take action for animals right from your computer!

[Donna]

Thank you Bobbie! There may be hope yet!

[Bobbie Ireland]

Thank you Bobbie! There may be hope yet!

That's pretty much all we have, Donna - hope! From the piece I posted, it does seem as if a modicum of sense - not to mention sensitivity and downright basic human decency! - might prevail. How much do such things dehumanise us all.

B.

[jeanne]

Why is distribution of child porn illegal but this is not? I'm confused by this. ???

Cindy

Good point, Cindy!

When I first read this, I exercised some freedom of speech of my own

[valhalla]

Sometimes the Law is simply the Law.  Yes, this is horrific - so is burning the American Flag, which is also protected under the 1st Amendment.  I do NOT like either action, yet I will defend the right of the individual to exercise that 1st Amendment right.  AND then I am going to exercise mine and will go to jail for it and feel really good about it. 

When issues get to the Supremes, it is the aspect of the Law that is decided, not the individual action.  I do not have to like a decision, such as this, but it isn't the film that was decided - it was the 1st Amendment Action.  Repeat - I don't like this.

[Tokira]

Cool your jets, folks.
This proposed legislation was pushed by the Animal Rights crowd, and it covered all training videos, etc., to be eliminated under the pretext of outlawing "crush" videos.
It was well and properly researched, and properly presented and decided by the SCOTUS, as an overly broad attack on legitimate animal training and husbandry practices and videos, sensationalized as usual by the PETA and H$U$ crazies.
It was a good case, and properly handled by the Supreme Court.
There will be a followup, which does NOT outlaw legitimate animal-related videos, but is rather narrowed down to ONLY outlaw the "crush" videos, which incidentally, those doing the research and presenting the case to the court even had a hard time finding.
Carol
(who was closely connected with the case)

[Tokira]

I forgot to mention that in the original law, PETA and H$U$ had managed to get themselves exempted, so that they could continue to show THEIR contrived and edited videos, in order to solicit more contributions.
They will also attempt to be exempted from any new law, as cruelty videos are one of their leading tools to extract money from the unsuspecting public.
http://www.humanewatch.org
Carol

[Tokira]

Here's a "non-legalese" editorial on the situation:
http://ruthcrisler.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/supreme-court-crushes-small-arguments/

Carol