PDA

View Full Version : SCOTUS dogfight decision



dnf777
04-20-2010, 06:10 PM
Did you guys catch this one?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/us/21scotus.html?hp

8 to 1. That's surprising. As much as I hate dogfighting and find it disgusting, I suppose that according to the Constitution, I would agree with the court.:confused:

I can see the distrubution and viewing, etc not being able to be outlawed....but the making of? Again, I suppose they have no problem with the law that makes dogfighting illegal, but the act of producing video per se, is protected! Twisted logic. But using the same reasoning for being able to outlaw child porn, the making and selling of such crap creates the market, and therefore makes victoms. In any case, I was surprised given the make up of the court, they got a 8-1 ruling on anything.

BonMallari
04-20-2010, 06:24 PM
what people tend to overlook is that it was about the FIRST amendment...as despicable and nauseating as dog fighting is, it had to do with the guy being able to video what he wanted...the media isnt being totally honest with everyone when they report about the story, because freedom of speech doesnt make you stay tuned beyond the commercial,but dog fighting does...its really a shame that this idiot gets to hide behind the First amendment to show his trash

dnf777
04-20-2010, 06:40 PM
yeah, that was my thought too. But the act of filming and distributing drives the illegal and immoral activity....just like child porn. Adult porn at least has "consenting" adults, and therefore the courts did not see fit to limit that activity, and thence the media portraying it. Since dog fighting is illegal and immoral, and I don't know of dogs being able to consent to their own abuse or exploitation, I was hoping the court would use the same logic and uphold the law banning its taping and distribution. I don't agree with them, but I suppose from a first amendment point of view, I can understand, and well, I suppose agree. That makes me sick to admit.

huntinman
04-20-2010, 06:53 PM
Evidently, the SC felt that if they went the other way, it could hurt legitimate videos such as hunting videos and shows among other things...

BonMallari
04-20-2010, 08:24 PM
yeah, that was my thought too. But the act of filming and distributing drives the illegal and immoral activity....just like child porn. Adult porn at least has "consenting" adults, and therefore the courts did not see fit to limit that activity, and thence the media portraying it. Since dog fighting is illegal and immoral, and I don't know of dogs being able to consent to their own abuse or exploitation, I was hoping the court would use the same logic and uphold the law banning its taping and distribution. I don't agree with them, but I suppose from a first amendment point of view, I can understand, and well, I suppose agree. That makes me sick to admit.

You are preaching to the choir, I agree with you on your opinion...makes me sick to my stomach

Terry Britton
04-20-2010, 09:23 PM
Evidently, the SC felt that if they went the other way, it could hurt legitimate videos such as hunting videos and shows among other things...

Or it would make the undercover reporter, or even a police officer filming for evidense illegal.

Eric Johnson
04-20-2010, 10:01 PM
First of all, the case was on the depiction of fights, not the fights themselves.

The majority felt that the law was overly broad and may make perfectly legal activities (hunting) illegal simply because they were filmed and the film available where the activity is illegal. Animal cruelty is already illegal. Why have law that is so broad that folks don't know whether they are breaking it? As it happens, the HSUS was sweating bullets. On the one hand they had to support the government position while on the other hand, all their cruelty films shot by "innocent" kennel or circus help would make them at risk.

Mr. Chief Justice Roberts writes, "The Government hits this theme hard, invoking its prosecutorial discretion several times. See id., at 6–7, 10, and n. 6, 19, 22. But the First Amendment protects against the Government; it does not leave us at the mercy of noblesse oblige. We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the Government promised to use it responsibly. Cf. Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U. S. 457, 473 (2001)."

In short, the case was before the Court so they had to decide it. They couldn't decide to leave a bad law in place with only the promise of the government to not enforce it.

Eric

dnf777
04-21-2010, 06:06 AM
Eric,
thanks for chiming in. As I mentioned, sick as it may make me, I agree with the court's decision. This particular example, or application that tested the law, unfortunately turns stomachs. I understand the activity is illegal, and that doesnt change.

What about the comparison to child porn. That is illegal also, but the courts felt the production and distribution of video "created victoms" who cannot consent to such activity. Why wouldn't that apply in this particular case? Or does it, but the law just extended too far beyond this particular test case? Ah, I think I just answered my own question.

ducknwork
04-21-2010, 07:28 AM
I don't think the video market is what drives dog fighting at all, dnf. At least around here, it's more about people getting together and drinking/smoking, but mainly gambling. I know people that have videos of fighting, but that isn't why they did/do it. In their circles, it gives them 'bragging rights' if their dog is the 'baddest'.

Eric Johnson
04-21-2010, 09:44 AM
A revision is apparently already under way.

Eric
************

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/04/20/legislative-branch-responds-after-supremes-animal-ruling/

http://tinyurl.com/y2w83rm

April 20, 2010, 5:29 PM ET
Legislative Branch Responds After Supremes’ Animal Ruling

By Amir Efrati

The Supreme Court’s ruling today on dog-fighting videos isn’t
likely to be the last word on the issue. Hours after the court struck
down a law banning images of animal cruelty, the law’s author told WSJ’s
Jess Bravin he was ready with a new law narrowly targeting the “crush
videos” that initially prompted the legislation. Reports Bravin:

Rep. Elton Gallegly (R., Calif.) told the Law Blog he was planning to
introduce a bill “before the end of the day that I think will be
consistent with what the court was talking about.”

The court voted 8-1 to invalidate Gallegly’s 1999 legislation because it
covered almost any depiction of cruelty or violence to animals. The law
was so broad it exposed a swath of constitutionally protected speech to
criminal prosecution, the court held. But the opinion left open the
possibility that a narrower measure could pass constitutional muster....

-more-