I was horrified at the decision when I read about it - as I am horrified at "crush videos" - No, horrified isn't enough)
Unfortunately, SCOTUS was probably correct that *this* law to deal with them was badly written and needed to be struck down.
The ruling was NOT that "crush videos" are protected free speech.
This case was about a guy who made some nasty videos of simulated dog attacks. They would set up a shot where the dog(s) would rush up at [target], then they'd splice in shots of the dogs tearing up some animal parts they'd purchased from a butcher.
He was selling them in a magazine that catered to the dog-fighting crowd, so they arrested and prosecuted him under this very vaguely-worded law. This was the first attempt at enforcement.
The law prohibits recordings, reenactments, simulations, or descriptions of acts of animal cruelty.
The example of unintended consequences most often brought up was that much of Hemmingway's writings would be illegal under the law.
They way the law is worded, blogging about your trip to a bull fight on vacation - illegal.
The movie The Jerk, with its cat-juggling scene, illegal.
Monty Python - illegal.
So, they struck it down as being too broadly worded. The decision includes a statement requesting that if Congress wants to make "crush videos" illegal - MAKE THEM ILLEGAL. Be explicit, don't get all cutesy and try to address the whole space.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 03:11 am (UTC)Unfortunately, SCOTUS was probably correct that *this* law to deal with them was badly written and needed to be struck down.
The ruling was NOT that "crush videos" are protected free speech.
This case was about a guy who made some nasty videos of simulated dog attacks. They would set up a shot where the dog(s) would rush up at [target], then they'd splice in shots of the dogs tearing up some animal parts they'd purchased from a butcher.
He was selling them in a magazine that catered to the dog-fighting crowd, so they arrested and prosecuted him under this very vaguely-worded law. This was the first attempt at enforcement.
The law prohibits recordings, reenactments, simulations, or descriptions of acts of animal cruelty.
The example of unintended consequences most often brought up was that much of Hemmingway's writings would be illegal under the law.
They way the law is worded, blogging about your trip to a bull fight on vacation - illegal.
The movie The Jerk, with its cat-juggling scene, illegal.
Monty Python - illegal.
So, they struck it down as being too broadly worded. The decision includes a statement requesting that if Congress wants to make "crush videos" illegal - MAKE THEM ILLEGAL. Be explicit, don't get all cutesy and try to address the whole space.