Supreme Court overturns federal legislation against animal cruelty

[CiceroKit]

I received the following in my inbox:

Last week, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law banning interstate sale of graphic animal "crush" videos that show extreme forms of animal cruelty for the sexual titillation of viewers.

These grotesque videos involve the intentional crushing, drowning, burning, and impaling of kittens, puppies, rabbits, and other small animals, often by women in high heels.

Help make sure these horrific videos never see the light of day again -- despite the Supreme Court decision.

Fortunately, outrage over the Supreme Court's decision has spurred Congress to act again: U.S. Representative Elton Gallegly (R-CA) and 56 other Representatives introduced H.R. 5092.

The original law was passed in the 1990s to prevent the unnecessary cruelty to animals. When it comes to our "sex laws," I am usually pretty Libertarian, and I don't see my disapproval of these kind of videos to be anything different. A key facet of Libertarianism is that we need not legally intervene unless something is harmful to someone else. These videos are harmful to animals that are otherwise protected by anti-cruelty laws. Animals lack the ability to consent to such an act, and I am quite sure that no animal would want to be slowly crushed to death. That would be a horrible way to die.

If you feel strongly about supporting the passage of H.R. 5092, you can contact the Humane Society of the United States. I know they are lobbying for the bill. Their Web site: http://www.humanesociety.org

[Avan]

Killing/maiming small animals via outdated methods of execution not seen in widespread use since the medieval ages is CLEARLY a problem.

I don't care whether or not is was a turn on for some; though I don't care in the least about what turns people on, small puppies are being crushed/burned/drowned. There's the problem.
I didn't support alaska burning puppies in part of their wolf extermination thingy, I don't support burning puppies for people's entertainment either.

[Yip]

Any idea why this was struck down?

While I don't have a problem with the videos directly (but would never want to watch something like that). It's clear that the making of this kind of thing is directly responsible for horrific animal cruelty.  So personally I think they should crack down on the people that make it.

As for the sale of these videos, I have mixed feelings about it. I totally dismiss ideas about "these will make people want to abuse animals"; no direct link can be shown. Hell, watching something like that might make someone take a greater stance against animal cruelty. So I don't buy that as a reason to ban them.  However, people buying these things does cause a demand for more to be made. And as I said, making them almost certainly involves animal cruelty. (unless they take great pains to avoid that with special effects and such.)

[Avan]

And as I said, making them almost certainly involves animal cruelty.

This essentially. Not sure if there is much else to say

[Sky Striker]

Jeez, I heard about this on the Daily Show but I thought that I heard wrong. How could this even be legal? Isn't animal abuse, in any form, illegal?

Seriously, we need to start a petition or something, even if only to prevent any harm whatsoever from coming to these animals. Unless someone can direct me to an already existing petition of course.

[Avan]

I mean, if its all merely special effects.... but from what I can tell, it's actual harm.

[Sky Striker]

Ah! Found a petition! http://animals.change.org/petitions/view/tell_the_us_government_to_ban_crush_videos

Sign using the box on the right! Already over 900 signatures!

Edit

Found lots more. You can find them by simply typing "crush video petition" into google.

[Narei Mooncatt]

Of course I disapprove of these kinds of videos. At the same time, I wanted to know what lawyer and what defendant had the "you know whats" to try and challenge that kind of law. I came across THIS article that seemed to explain why the law was shot down, and after reading it, I have to agree with the Supreme Court on this.

The cliff notes version of it is the defendent challenging it was claiming to use a pit bull fighting clip from Japan as education to distinguish pit bulls trained to fight or to hunt. It was not an animal crush proponent bringing the challenge, thankfully. The supreme court says that the law was too broad and could effectively ban legal media such as educational and hunting videos and magazines, which violates free speech rights. They were not trying to say animal crush videos are ok to have, but that the law has to be more clearly defined so it doesn't affect legitimate media.

Hopefully that clears up some of the hysteria that I'm sure is going to surround this issue, and I'd love to see a better law put in place myself.

[Sky Striker]

Of course I disapprove of these kinds of videos. At the same time, I wanted to know what lawyer and what defendant had the "you know whats" to try and challenge that kind of law. I came across THIS article that seemed to explain why the law was shot down, and after reading it, I have to agree with the Supreme Court on this.

The cliff notes version of it is the defendent challenging it was claiming to use a pit bull fighting clip from Japan as education to distinguish pit bulls trained to fight or to hunt. It was not an animal crush proponent bringing the challenge, thankfully. The supreme court says that the law was too broad and could effectively ban legal media such as educational and hunting videos and magazines, which violates free speech rights. They were not trying to say animal crush videos are ok to have, but that the law has to be more clearly defined so it doesn't affect legitimate media.

Hopefully that clears up some of the hysteria that I'm sure is going to surround this issue, and I'd love to see a better law put in place myself.

Well that does clear some things up of why in the world the bill was shot down, but they still could have done a better job of defining the law so that crush videos are illegal.

[CiceroKit]

Apparently, the new bill, H.R. 5092, is supposed to much more narrowly define abuse of animals that is perpetrated for the purposes of making such videos.

This new bill amends the Crush Act to give it a much narrower focus that would still prohibit selling or offering to sell any depictions of animals being crushed, drowned, impaled or burned.

It sounds like the law should have been more specific in the first place, but that there was some ambiguity. Hopefully, the amended bill will get enacted.

There is some more information about the bill on the following Web site. It is good to see bipartisan support on this.
http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2010/04/cruelty_depiction_law_introduced_042110.html

[Mooshi]

I mean, if its all merely special effects.... but from what I can tell, it's actual harm.

I'm shocked that for a forum filled with proclaimed animal lovers, this turned into a dead topic! No, it isn't "special effects". :/ I've seen these videos before because of some jerk in this rabbit group I was part of on SL posted a link in group chat of a bunny getting crushed to death by a sick twisted (female dog)! I was disgusted when I found out people fetishized over it.  

[Spirit]

This is horrible. If you like killing people, should it be legal because you enjoy doing it? Just because they aren't human doesn't mean that you should be able to do something like that.

[Yip]

I direct you to Narei's post above and Cicero's post just two below that. These explain that it's not nearly so bad as it first sounds. They were not legalizing animal cruelty but rather making sure the law isn't too far reaching.

For those interested in where the new bill currently stands, I found THIS

[Kr2i]

I'am not form the US but I still agree that it shouldn't be allowed

[killrhawk]

This is horrible. If you like killing people, should it be legal because you enjoy doing it? Just because they aren't human doesn't mean that you should be able to do something like that.

Yeah, pretty much what Spirit said. How can people stand watching things like that, much less enjoy it?

[Ferux]

This is serious? This is terrible! Why would people do this? It's wrong in so many ways? How can people find this entertaining? Even worse they find it sexually exciting? So many things are wrong with people.

Serious outrage

[Serra Belvoule]

At first I was going to dismiss this as an elaborate spam, but I see a couple did a bit of research :3 I took a look and I'm surprised that there's people actually willing to open up to these kind of videos.
I'm going to skip all the logical argumentation and just say "What the cuss is wrong with these people??"
That is all, thank you.