According to a member of Congress who intends to sponsor a replacement bill, the law forbade the interstate sale of depictions in which “a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed, if such conduct is illegal under Federal law or the law of the State in which the creation, sale, or possession takes place.”
The key there is "if such conduct is illegal." I've seen people claim this video made it illegal to make movies about hunting. I don't see how such broad interpretations stand up. I'm not aware of any laws against kitten juggling. Blogging about bull fights -- maybe, "depictions" is a bit problematic, though if this law has only been enforced once since it was passed, it's hard to argue it opened the floodgates for suppression of free speech.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 05:39 pm (UTC)The key there is "if such conduct is illegal." I've seen people claim this video made it illegal to make movies about hunting. I don't see how such broad interpretations stand up. I'm not aware of any laws against kitten juggling. Blogging about bull fights -- maybe, "depictions" is a bit problematic, though if this law has only been enforced once since it was passed, it's hard to argue it opened the floodgates for suppression of free speech.