View Single Post
  #15   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old May 2nd, 2013 (10:48 AM).
Esper's Avatar
Esper Esper is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Posts: 10,761
Originally Posted by Fenneking View Post
Um, let's get the facts straight. The couple is still facing animal cruelty and obscenity charges in the matter. The dismissal only applied to the violations of the New Federal Law.

The judge only dismissed the five charges under the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010, legislation passed after the Supreme Court ruled a similar case with animal torture fetish videos. The Supreme Court ruled in US v Stevens that the act of torture was still a crime; however, the law that prohibited the distribution of animal cruelty at the state level was not sufficient enough to abridge speech. Thus, the act of cruelty may be criminal, yet the depiction or filming of animal cruelty is not. Essentially, under the new Federal law that came out in 2010 in response to this judgement is overly broad. In that, if a film or show depicts the killing of a deer during hunting season, or a lion shreding apart a gazelle on the animal planet, both would violate the Federal Law. Further, under this law, mere DEPICTION of animal bodily-harm would be illegal. How many movies do you know that have animals appearing to be harmed, like action or horror genres? Should those movies be banned from distribution?

The Judge is simply conveying that the Federal Law is overly-broad and violates the Supreme Court Decision of 2009.

The couple will most likely face harsh convictions under animal torture laws.
I guess then the problem here, at least for me, is how the new law was worded. I personally think that there should be a penalty for making and distributing videos of the kind that were made (videos of intentional human torture of animals for the sake of torture and not journalistic recordings documenting it happening), similar, but although not identical, to how we treat child pornography. If someone is willing to break the law to make these movies then any number of people could watch and distribute them freely and I think that undercuts the intention of the law, which I think is a good intention.
Reply With Quote