Dog Fight Videos Are Free Speech

[randallscott35]

Not to me. Gross.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/20/dog.fight.videos/

[brianwspencer]

I'm simultaneously disgusted by the idea of the videos and supportive of the court's decision. The two aren't mutually exclusive ideas to me.

[Princess Doreen]

Perhaps if enough people watch these videos, they'll realize how heinous the sport is and how despicable the people who involve themselves in it deserve a special circle in hell when they die.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

Perhaps if enough people watch these videos, they'll realize how heinous the sport is and how despicable the people who involve themselves in it deserve a special circle in hell when they die.

I agree with you %1000 on this one. These people who have these beautiful animals fight are a menace to society.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I'm simultaneously disgusted by the idea of the videos and supportive of the court's decision. The two aren't mutually exclusive ideas to me.

you say exactly what i was thinking.
they took on the westboro case-i don't imagine they'll rule the way many want them to there either. i find those people despicable, but i don't see how the court can't rule they're entitled to free speech.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

Perhaps if enough people watch these videos, they'll realize how heinous the sport is and how despicable the people who involve themselves in it deserve a special circle in hell when they die.

1000% agree.

I could never imagine putting my precious and beautiful dog, Honey Ryder, in a fight for her life and those that do are truly despicable.

[Princess Doreen]

It's not just about the dogs who do the fighting, it's about the hundreds of dogs that are stolen off people's property and used as test dogs to get the fighting dogs to fight and kill.

Disgusting, and the punishment these people get doesn't fit their crime. I'd like to see a video made whereby one of these scumbuckets get in there and fight against one of those dogs buck bare naked and no weapons.

That's what I'd call freedom of speech.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you say exactly what i was thinking.
they took on the westboro case-i don't imagine they'll rule the way many want them to there either. i find those people despicable, but i don't see how the court can't rule they're entitled to free speech.

I really loaaaaathe the Westboro folks...but I'm not particularly fond of the idea of them losing any right to do what they do, no matter how despicable their message may be. There is really almost no time I won't err on the side of free speech. It doesn't mean it can't have social consequences, ie people saying things like that losing their jobs (in other instances), but I'm almost universally on the side of a person's right to say it in the first place.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I really loaaaaathe the Westboro folks...but I'm not particularly fond of the idea of them losing any right to do what they do, no matter how despicable their message may be. There is really almost no time I won't err on the side of free speech. It doesn't mean it can't have social consequences, ie people saying things like that losing their jobs (in other instances), but I'm almost universally on the side of a person's right to say it in the first place.

i was reading the other day that the irs has investigated westboro, but they found the only property they could possibly tax was an old van-if it was ruled that westboro shouldn't be non-tax.. many think that group is a hate group, not a church...
i find their actions to be so far beyond objectionable, they are disgusting. but i don't see how they can be stopped either.

[Merlinsky]

When I first read the article on CNN, I looked at the comments and people seemed to be pretty clueless about the law and what's involved in free speech if they really thought about it. I gotta stop doing that, it just makes me angry. The statute would criminalize people trying to use these videos to attack the situation, not to encourage it. I bet PETA has it available for viewing. Much as I'd love for them to get yelled at for something, this ain't it.

The dog fighting videos aren't like pedophilia videos. Those inclined to do this don't get off on watching the videos per se, they might learn more about how to do it, but they kinda wanna be there in person.

[clyde]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

When I first read the article on CNN, I looked at the comments and people seemed to be pretty clueless about the law and what's involved in free speech if they really thought about it. I gotta stop doing that, it just makes me angry. The statute would criminalize people trying to use these videos to attack the situation, not to encourage it. I bet PETA has it available for viewing. Much as I'd love for them to get yelled at for something, this ain't it.

The dog fighting videos aren't like pedophilia videos. Those inclined to do this don't get off on watching the videos per se, they might learn more about how to do it, but they kinda wanna be there in person.

Steve...quit clowning around.



Like no one knows this is you.

[hi_im_god]

i'm surprised there was a dissent. this was a no brainer for anyone with a basic understanding that freedom of speech also means freedom of speech you hate.

nothing in this case endorses animal cruelty. the acts depicted in dog fight and crush video's remain illegal in all states. they've simply ruled not to add speech which depicts animal cruelty to the short list of speech that isn't protected by the 1st amendment.

the ruling also left an open door to congress. it said the 1999 law was over broad. a narrowly defined law specifically targeting dog fight and crush video's may be constitutional.

in then interim, you no longer need to worry about posting that video of your neighbor killing a snake.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

westboro, .... but i don't see how they can be stopped either.

They can be stopped by ignoring them. A bit difficult to do where they physically inject themselves, surely. But, picture a Klu Klux Klan rally, walking downtown somewhere, and nobody, but nobody, even bothers to attend to heckle, or even watch. Not much fun to be an agitator all alone, with nobody to agitate.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I'm simultaneously disgusted by the idea of the videos and supportive of the court's decision. The two aren't mutually exclusive ideas to me.

Brian -- I agree on both counts.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i'm surprised there was a dissent. this was a no brainer for anyone with a basic understanding that freedom of speech also means freedom of speech you hate.

nothing in this case endorses animal cruelty. the acts depicted in dog fight and crush video's remain illegal in all states. they've simply ruled not to add speech which depicts animal cruelty to the short list of speech that isn't protected by the 1st amendment.

the ruling also left an open door to congress. it said the 1999 law was over broad. a narrowly defined law specifically targeting dog fight and crush video's may be constitutional.

in then interim, you no longer need to worry about posting that video of your neighbor killing a snake.

Why would the freedom of speech argument apply to this but not to child pornography?

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Why would the freedom of speech argument apply to this but not to child pornography?

i don't know. you'd have to ask the justices who made that ruling.

i thought the obscenity decision was a reach. and although you're now still free post a video of your daughter stepping on a spider, you better be sure there's nothing of prurient interest to any imaginable pervert in the way she's dressed.

i get that defamation isn't a first amendment right. i think the child porn decision is problematic.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Why would the freedom of speech argument apply to this but not to child pornography?

The justices Tuesday concluded the scope and intent of the decade-old statute was overly broad.

"The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh its costs," said Chief Justice John Roberts. He concluded Congress had not sufficiently shown "depictions" of dogfighting were enough to justify a special category of exclusion from free speech protection.





If the law had been upheld, it would have been only the second time the Supreme Court had identified a form of speech undeserving of protection by the First Amendment. The justices in 1982 banned the distribution of child pornography

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Danzig

The justices Tuesday concluded the scope and intent of the decade-old statute was overly broad.

"The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh its costs," said Chief Justice John Roberts. He concluded Congress had not sufficiently shown "depictions" of dogfighting were enough to justify a special category of exclusion from free speech protection.





If the law had been upheld, it would have been only the second time the Supreme Court had identified a form of speech undeserving of protection by the First Amendment. The justices in 1982 banned the distribution of child pornography

other than defamation and the earlier obscenity rulings.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

other than defamation and the earlier obscenity rulings.

i think they mean that child porn is the only 'free speech' that doesn't have restrictions, but is completely banned. you have to prove defamation, obscenity-but it's pretty cut and dried what is child porn.