Supreme Court in the modern age

[erinlefey]

[Public]

They just had to deal with "crush videos".

If you don't know what they are...I envy you. I now know. (I'll define it in the comments if you really want to know.) And I have never come across a concept that literally made my stomach spasm and attempt to vomit based on the IDEA. I initially said that I hate to be a member of the human race now. I've rethought that. People into that are not human. Y'all know that I'm a live-and-let-live, your-kink-is-OK kind of girl. But if I find someone who thinks such things are nifty, I'm rebooting them into the next reincarnation.

Comment away. But don't joke. My sense of humor is absent on this subject.

Comments

[willful-zephyr.livejournal.com]

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.

[macgeezel.livejournal.com]

I dunno. I read 18 U.S.C. Section 48 (as I am completely with you on not even being able to consider the possibility of the existence of crush videos without feeling deep-down-dirty and nauseous and hopeless for a good couple of hours, so this immediately made me spaz out), and I don't think it's as broad as it's being made out to be. Certainly the blogging about bullfights wouldn't fall under "illegal", since it could be construed as both educational and journalistic. Exceptions are also made for religious, political, scientific, historical and artistic depictions (and The Jerk is certainly art). The conduct being depicted also must be illegal under federal or state law. Perhaps my interpretation is colored by my perspective; I have zero problem with any of the protected depictions, so I'm not the type to use it broadly. But maybe it COULD be. In any case, something will be re-written to deal with the issue of crush videos (and possibly dogfighting videos, which is what the guy in this case was nailed for) specifically.

[willful-zephyr.livejournal.com]

It is the exceptions that get it in trouble, as legislation goes.

This dog fighting guy - there wasn't any actual dog fighting, it was all fake - it was a depiction. Why isn't it art? What if it had some random quotes under the images?

The courts really, really don't want to get into, "What is Art?" Hopefully, they'll come up with something a little more concrete and enforceable.

[macgeezel.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen anything that says it was fake. Everything (several articles, Wikipedia) just says there were two dogfighting compilations, narrated by Stevens, and a third boar-hunting video, and actual footage is mentioned. According to Stevens, the dogfighting videos were meant to provide a historical perspective on the practice. If you can point me in the direction of anything that says no authentic footage was contained in the videos, I'd love to see it.

[willful-zephyr.livejournal.com]

Hmph, I cannot find the article anymore, so I will not stand by it veracity. But, it had said specifically that the "Boar Hunt" was staged.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

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.