Terrible SCOTUS decision!

1. 93

   habeeposted 13 years ago

   The SCOTUS just decided not to ban the making and selling of dog fighting videos!
   
   I don't understand this at all. Dog fighting is illegal in all 50 states! It's illegal to sell hunting videos and hunting magazines in Washington, DC, but dog fighting videos are okay. What were they thinking?
   
   The vote was 8-1. You'll never believe who the lone sensible vote came from - Alito! What happened to the liberal judges when we needed them?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      cosetteposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      that is disgusting and shameful!
      
      shakes head in disbelief
      
      what is wrong with people?!
      
      we are going to hell in a handbasket, i fear...
      
      ugh

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Poppa Bluesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Free speech must be protected even when it's speech we don't like. Is that any less offensive than "crush" videos where women in high heels crush small animals like mice and kittens? It's a sick world to be sure.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      Padrinoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Justices are charged with interpreting law without emotion, though it is reprehensible to film fighting dogs it apparently is a form of speech protected under the 1st Amendment.
      
      Any ruling protecting the Bill of Rights is a good ruling!

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         The seventh seal may be cracking, but I agree with Padrino and Poppa Blues on this. Freedom of speech means freedom for everyone's speech.
         
         Note that they didn't rule that dogfighting is legal, just that filming dogfighting is legal. If I were a DA, I'd charge dog fight filmers with accessory to the crime of organizing a dog fight.
         
         And by the way:
         It's illegal to sell hunting magazines/videos in D.C.!? Really? I imagine that will end up in front of the high court as well.
         
         Finally, the "crush" videos Poppa mentioned? Ew. I don't even want to know how you know about those.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Poppa Bluesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I thought it was part of the case. It was mentioned on NPR.

            replyreport
2. 0

   Madame Xposted 13 years ago

   Long live State's Rights!!

   replyreport
3. 93

   habeeposted 13 years ago

   I support free speech, but it DOES have limitations - slander, libel, kiddie porn, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc. If it's illegal to do these things, the vile dog fighting and crush videos should fall under the same limitations.
   
   As for the crush films, what kind of man would be turned on by this sort of thing?? I'm not a sexual prude - I think anything between consenting adults is fine, but no kids and no animals!

   replyreport
   1. 0

      cosetteposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      so, the ACLU was right, then, when they defended NAMBLA's first amendment rights?
      
      hmm...
      
      
      
      
      
      i am totally in agreement on this. how can they in good conscience not ban these films from being made? i mean you can't just turn on your tv any time of day on any channel and watch an X-rated movie. we HAVE to draw a line somewhere and protect those who have no voice - children and animals. which is why both are abused all the time...because the rights of their abusers are protected.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         "so, the ACLU was right, then, when they defended NAMBLA's first amendment rights? "
         
         Well, yeah. And when they defend the KKK's first amendment rights, and when they defend (insert any unpopular or disgusting group here)'s first amendment rights.
         
         NAMBLA can say whatever they want to say. If NAMBLA does what they say they want to do, however, then they're violating someone's rights, and the law.
         
         I get that this stance will be unpopular (it sickens me that these kind of people even exist!) but if we let the gross-out factor be our yardstick for prohibition, whose gross-out factor do we use? Plenty of people I know would apply the gross-out standard to consenting gay adults. Many people I know would apply the gross-out standard to consenting heterosexual adults who practice bondage. Where do you draw the line? If we base the line on an emotional response, the line will creep and creep until we're only allowed to talk about heterosexual missionary position sex, if we're allowed to talk about sex at all.
         
         Talking* doesn't hurt anyone. Doing, however, is another story.
         
         
         *there are a few exceptions, like inciting others to commit a crime, &c.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            cosetteposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            
            
            
            we don't, apparently.
            
            we should draw the line for those who cannot speak - children and animals. they give no consent to people who hurt and harm them. that's not being emotional. that's doing the right thing.
            
            the ACLU's mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."
            
            except children.
            
            and animals. yes they are not people but they deserve our protection nonetheless. the right to free speech shouldn't trump the right to not be tortured and killed for people's amusement.

            replyreport
            1. 75

               Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               "the ACLU's mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."
               
               except children."
               
               Wait, what? The ACLU has gone to bat to protect children's freedoms many times. They've defended children's freedom of expression, their freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc.
               
               "the right to free speech shouldn't trump the right to not be tortured and killed for people's amusement." Agreed, and I'd never (and niether would the ACLU, by the way) defend anybody who tortured and/or killed a person or an animal for amusement. But I will (and so will the ACLU) defend people who only talk about doing so. If we don't, everyone involved in producing, for example, the SAW movies and the movie Hostel would be in jail for producing images of people being tortured and killed for people's amusement.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Padrinoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  You are absolutely correct! Wait, did I say that?

                  replyreport
               2. 0

                  cosetteposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  
                  
                  
                  i haven't seen either of those films, but they don't show real acts of violence, so no one is getting hurt, right? but it they showed real torture and murder, wouldn't that be illegal and shouldn't all involved be incarcerated?
                  
                  on another note, people participating in fights are not being exploited like animals are. plus they are being paid a boatload of money.
                  
                  i am still mad at the judges and they should be ashamed.

                  replyreport
4. 0

   wordscribe41posted 13 years ago

   I must be completely out of touch with some modern "entertainment", but please tell me these "crush" videos aren't real.  I have never heard of such a sick thing in all my life.  More and more, I MUCH prefer animals to people. 

   replyreport
5. 0

   cosetteposted 13 years ago

   i never heard of them either. anyone participating in the creation, distribution or displaying of them should be arrested!

   replyreport
   1. 0

      wordscribe41posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Completely agree.  Why are they not, I ask?  We have laws against animal abuse.  I'm baffled, sick and horrified.  I'd like to stomp on their bodies in my golf shoes.

      replyreport
6. 0

   cosetteposted 13 years ago

   people like that need a good pimp-slapping
   
   i'm not a violent person but i could administer it

   replyreport
7. 0

   wordscribe41posted 13 years ago

   Pimp slapping...    I'm not violent either, but I could easily go postal on one of these abusers.  I will even spare a spider's body if possible, but I'm over the top.

   replyreport
8. 93

   habeeposted 13 years ago

   Bondage doesn't torture and kill helpless animals!

   replyreport
9. 0

   cosetteposted 13 years ago

   plus those bondage people consent to that, although why anyone would consent to being trussed like a chicken is beyond me

   replyreport
   1. 61

      samboiamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Don't knock it till you try it.

      replyreport
      1. 93

         habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I'll have to agree with Sam on this one!

         replyreport
10. 0

    cosetteposted 13 years ago

    that bear has a very sinister look on his face
    
    and you're right. my apologies

    replyreport
11. 65

    Ralph Deedsposted 13 years ago

    I'm not a fan of dog fighting videos, but in my opinion, extreme fight shows between humans shown on cable television are just as bad or worse. The only difference in favor of extreme fighting is that the participants are voluntary whereas the dogs are not.

    replyreport
    1. 93

       habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Right, Ralph, and therein lies the difference.

       replyreport
    2. 56

       Sab Ohposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       "I'm not a fan of dog fighting videos, but in my opinion, extreme fight shows between humans shown on cable television are just as bad or worse."
       
       
       That is ridiculous

       replyreport
    3. 73

       rhamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I think what is sad is that there is an obvious audience that supports these spectacles and is a real snap shot of our society. 
       
       The extreme violence based video games our young people, many in their thirties, purchase shows at least a fringe element to the aggressive violent world many young people at least dabble with.
       
       It is no wonder why our young people think little of the ramifications of war and find the reasons for its happening time consuming and a bore.

       replyreport