|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
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?
that is disgusting and shameful!
shakes head in disbelief
what is wrong with people?!
we are going to hell in a handbasket, i fear...
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.
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!
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.
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!
so, the ACLU was right, then, when they defended NAMBLA's first amendment rights?
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.
"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.
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."
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.
"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."
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.
You are absolutely correct! Wait, did I say that?
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.
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.
i never heard of them either. anyone participating in the creation, distribution or displaying of them should be arrested!
people like that need a good pimp-slapping
i'm not a violent person but i could administer it
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.
plus those bondage people consent to that, although why anyone would consent to being trussed like a chicken is beyond me
that bear has a very sinister look on his face
and you're right. my apologies
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.
"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
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.
by hawkdad736 years ago
A judge in the Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox case found that Cox was not a journalist and "therefore not entitled to the protections that media defendants enjoy in libel cases" (First amendment.org)....
by ahorseback6 months ago
Get over it , one's as good as the next in this foundational civil right , In truth and statistical form , the first amendment has allowed more death and destruction than the second ?
by ahorseback2 months ago
I guess they won't like losing their government contracts for credit card use for one thing , because of their Anti -Second Amendment actions . Limiting Citi uses of and for gun related business' ? Legislators are...
by Ralph Deeds8 years ago
After a towing company hauled Justin Kurtz’s car from his apartment complex parking lot, despite his permit to park there, Mr. Kurtz, 21, a college student in Kalamazoo, Mich., went to the Internet for...
by Holle Abee7 years ago
Is burning the Qur'an even legal, according to the Constitution? Is it covered under the 1st Amendment?The SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that burning a cross is not covered by the 1st Amendment. Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the...
by My Esoteric2 years ago
If you were King for a day, what elements of of the U.S. Constitution amd its Amendments would you want to see deleted, repealed, added, or mofified to make it fit more to the way the SIGNERS of the Constitution...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.