Supreme Court Lifts Ban On Sale Of Animal Torture Videos
By: admin
4.20.2010
If you like to watch videos of ladies in high heels stepping on (and killing) tiny animals, today is your lucky day!
The Supreme Court has just lifted the ban on the sale of animal torture videos. I hope PETA is sitting down:
Chief Justice John J. Roberts Jr., writing for an eight-member majority, said the law was overly broad and not allowed by the First Amendment. He rejected the government's argument that whether certain categories of speech deserve constitutional protection depends on balancing the value of the speech against its societal costs. "The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits," Roberts wrote. "The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it." The law was enacted in 1999 to forbid sales of so-called "crush videos," which appeal to a certain sexual fetish by depicting the torture of animals or showing them being crushed to death by women with stiletto heels or their bare feet.
Samuel Alito (!?) was the lone dissenter, but the majority's opinion was that the law was too broadly written. Roberts wrote that even hunting videos could be construed as torture videos, when they are in fact a form of freedom of expression. And we wouldn't want to upset all of the artists who film themselves shooting wolves from helicopters.
If you like to watch videos of ladies in high heels stepping on (and killing) tiny animals, today is your lucky day!
The Supreme Court has just lifted the ban on the sale of animal torture videos. I hope PETA is sitting down:
Chief Justice John J. Roberts Jr., writing for an eight-member majority, said the law was overly broad and not allowed by the First Amendment. He rejected the government's argument that whether certain categories of speech deserve constitutional protection depends on balancing the value of the speech against its societal costs. "The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits," Roberts wrote. "The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it." The law was enacted in 1999 to forbid sales of so-called "crush videos," which appeal to a certain sexual fetish by depicting the torture of animals or showing them being crushed to death by women with stiletto heels or their bare feet.
Samuel Alito (!?) was the lone dissenter, but the majority's opinion was that the law was too broadly written. Roberts wrote that even hunting videos could be construed as torture videos, when they are in fact a form of freedom of expression. And we wouldn't want to upset all of the artists who film themselves shooting wolves from helicopters.
