Scum on the supreme crapper reverse animal cruelty law

[jem]

Its not the act of cruelty that was the issue here - none of the justices want to see dogs tortured.

They just think it is more important to keep American's rights from being tortured.

"The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs," Roberts said.

I agree.

 

[Markdoyle]

This isn`t "Freedom of Speech" this is cruelty and murder. Plain and simple. Where is the "Freedom of Speech" in abusing and murdering a defenseless, innocent animal and video taping it and selling it? This is sick! The people deserve to be shot that have anything to do with this.

Time for a new Justice Department.

 

[jem]

Quote from Markdoyle:

This isn`t "Freedom of Speech" this is cruelty and murder. Plain and simple. Where is the "Freedom of Speech" in abusing and murdering a defenseless, innocent animal and video taping it and selling it? This is sick! The people deserve to be shot that have anything to do with this.

Time for a new Justice Department.

The freedom of speech that is being protected - is that by drawing this line where they did - the government can't call you a criminal for selling a video which annoys some group of people who have the ear of the legislature.

For instance what if you started distributing an anti wall street banker video. What if they called it hate speech and arrested you.

 

[stock777]

Quote from tomdavis:

People are protected by the Constitution. Animals are not. Filming/selling child abuse or any act of violence against a person is illegal because the vicitim has constitutionally guaranteed rights. Animals do not have rights, therefore their rights cannot be violated.

Spoken like a true moron.

According to you, if it isn't in the Constitution, it can't legally exist.

So we stopped all progress in the 1700's.

 

[tomdavis]

Perhaps when you finish the third grade you'll understand our legal system and the constitution a little better. Here are the basics for an 8 year old: Many things exist outside of the constitution, but rights provided by the constitution do not. I accept that your abililty to discuss any topic is limited to name calling, but that's what 8 year old girls do so I won't hold it against you. Come back when you grow up.

Quote from stock777:

Spoken like a true moron.

According to you, if it isn't in the Constitution, it can't legally exist.

So we stopped all progress in the 1700's.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Interesting case that pitted law enforcement interests against free speech advocates. Of course, actual speech was not the issue but rather videos of dog fighting.

I found the breakdown of the Justices interesting, as the liberals voted together and only Alito defected from the conservative side. You might have thought the libs would have been eager to expand governmental regulation of conduct. In this case the conduct was pretty horrendous, and one would think if you could ban something entirely, you could certainly ban selling videos of it being done. Apparently not.

This was certainly not a core First Amendment value, selling dog fighting videos. Of course, the Court's liberals thought it was perfectly acceptable to ban a core First Amendment value, political speech, and supported numerous onerous restricitons on it. So the liberals on the Court find dog fighting more worthy of First Amendment protection than political speech. Classic.

The conservatives' votes are easier to understand. In general, they are suspicious of government excuses to ban speech, and also are very aware of the slippery slope potential. Today dog fighting, tomorrow hate speech, day after tomorrow, racially insensitive speech or speech that hurts gays feelings.

Honestly though, I thought Alito had the best of it. This was hard to distinguish from child pornography in the sense of it being exploitive and supportive of illegal activities. No core or even peripheral First Amendment issues were present.

You're an intelligent person, obviously much more educated that I, so maybe you can explain something to me. In my humble, south side rube opinion, it seems that our entire legal system is run as if it's some sort of classroom exercise. From top to bottom, Supreme Court Justices to some judge in traffic court, lawyers on both sides of any issue...it's all just a game, like some sort of debate team battle that has dire consequences for all, except for those engaged in the debate. When the obviously guilty are allowed to walk free it undermines the entire legal system, does it not? Every time some person walks on technical issue it rips the system a little bit more, until all those in a society lose respect for the law. Every time an O.J. walks, every time a John Wayne Gacy takes 20 years for execution of sentence, every time a well heeled guy buys his freedom, and a poor man does time for the same crime, the people lose a little more respect for the legal system. Consequently you get what we now have, which borders on a free for all. The slippery slope runs both ways and I fear what we've done to protect one aspect of our freedom is now threatening all our freedoms. Is there no room for real world judgments, damn the technicalities? Your thoughts.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Interesting case that pitted law enforcement interests against free speech advocates. Of course, actual speech was not the issue but rather videos of dog fighting.

I found the breakdown of the Justices interesting, as the liberals voted together and only Alito defected from the conservative side. You might have thought the libs would have been eager to expand governmental regulation of conduct. In this case the conduct was pretty horrendous, and one would think if you could ban something entirely, you could certainly ban selling videos of it being done. Apparently not.

This was certainly not a core First Amendment value, selling dog fighting videos. Of course, the Court's liberals thought it was perfectly acceptable to ban a core First Amendment value, political speech, and supported numerous onerous restricitons on it. So the liberals on the Court find dog fighting more worthy of First Amendment protection than political speech. Classic.

The conservatives' votes are easier to understand. In general, they are suspicious of government excuses to ban speech, and also are very aware of the slippery slope potential. Today dog fighting, tomorrow hate speech, day after tomorrow, racially insensitive speech or speech that hurts gays feelings.

Honestly though, I thought Alito had the best of it. This was hard to distinguish from child pornography in the sense of it being exploitive and supportive of illegal activities. No core or even peripheral First Amendment issues were present.

So really this thread is about liberals?

 

[stock777]

Quote from Ricter:

So really this thread is about liberals?

Just about every asinine law, ruling, event in the last 50 years is about Liberals.

Glad you've been paying attention.

Savage said it all, Liberalism is a Mental disorder.

We have fools in here that are wiping their butt with the constitution , in lieu of applying the most rudimentary logic to the debate. This is a typical liberal failing.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from stock777:

Just about every asinine law, ruling, event in the last 50 years is about Liberals.

Glad you've been paying attention.

Savage said it all, Liberalism is a Mental disorder.

We have fools in here that are wiping their butt with the constitution , in lieu of applying the most rudimentary logic to the debate. This is a typical liberal failing.

You are missing rudimentary logic, or should I say philosophy, yourself. There's a fundamental reason liberalism does not go away, and that's because it is the other side of the same coin conservatism occupies.

Man is a social animal. Some emphasize "man", others emphasize "social". Neither perspective is going away, ever.
We know that a state can break a man. Do we know that a man can break a state?

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from Ricter:

So really this thread is about liberals?

This may come as a shock to you, but there is a pretty clear liberal/conservative split on the Court. I'm not the first person who has commented on it, and it is usually the starting point for predictions about the outcome of cases.

The irony of this case to me was that liberals were willing to extend First Amendment protection to people selling videos of illegal dog fighting, but a few months ago they thought it was perfectly proper for congress to limit political speech in ways that clearly gave incumbents an advantage and limited the opportunity of ordinary citizens to make their views known.

Maybe you see consistency there, but I do not.