SCOTUS Overturns Ant-Animal Cruelty Law

[JWBear]

Link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2010-04-20-animal-cruelty-supreme-court_N.htm)

So now you can torture and kill as many animals as you like, and as long as you film it, it's legaly protected free speech! WTF?! :mad:

[JWBear]

(Could some kind moderator correct the thread title. It shound read "Anti-Animal", not "Ant-Animal". Thanks.)

[mousepod]

I'm not sure I understand the uproar. If I understand this correctly, it's still illegal to commit animal cruelty. Couldn't the videos be used as evidence anyway? I guess one could argue that the person holding the camera (and selling the videos) is an accessory to a crime, rather than having the act of filming and distributing the act be the crime in and of itself.

[Ghoulish Delight]

First of all:

So now you can torture and kill as many animals as you like, and as long as you film it, it's legaly protected free speech! WTF?! No. If what is being filmed is illegal, those that are performing the illegal activity are still breaking the law. What is no longer illegal is the act of filming it.

I do think it's reasonable to put restrictions on filming illegal animal cruelty activity, especially in scenarios where the filming itself is part of the motivation for the illegal activity (as was mentioned during the hearings, there's a lot of cross over with child pornography laws).

However, I think I agree with this decision, based on the law as written.

Among other things, as written, the law would pretty much ban even a documentary, with the purpose of preventing further animal cruelty, from being produced. Or implicate someone filming illegal dog fights in a sting attempt. It was far too broad, covered things that are not illegal in all jurisdictions, and failed to be focused on those actually complicit in illegal animal cruelty. As written, if I film my permitted fishing trip, then show that film in a city where fishing is illegal, I'm breaking the law.

A new law will be written, hopefully one with more focus and more enforceability. But as much as I'd like to agree with the moral impetus behind the law that was struck down, if it went too far, it had to be struck down.

[scaeagles]

Agree with GD completely. Could be first time I have ever uttered those words.

[Gemini Cricket]

Sheesh! Can't a man club a baby seal in peace?
:D

Here in Hawai'i the legislature is discussing shark-finning and trying to make it illegal for places to sell shark fin soup, dried shark fin etc. I'm against it. It's a terrible practice. But knowing the legislature here, they'll do nothing and just continue on with their dinglecheesery.

[scaeagles]

Being the horrible father that I am, I once took my then 6 year old daughter's stuffed baby harp seal she got at Sea World and put red yarn all over it and placed it next to a wiffle ball bat. She had recently watched a Nat Geo special in which the seal hunt was described and she was not amused.

[Alex]

It's a relatively simple opinion if anybody wants to read it (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf).

I agree with the ruling that while the heart may have been in the correct place it is way overbroad in its language and makes illegal many things that shouldn't be. I think this is the quote at the gut of it:

...this Court will not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the Government promises to use it responsibly.

[JWBear]

But, what's to stop someone from filming himself killing an animal and then claiming that the act is free speech because he filmed it?

There has to be some limits to free speech. Some things go too far.

[Strangler Lewis]

While the First Amendment protects expressive conduct, you don't get to say that your bank robbery should be protected as an anarchic gesture. Such an argument would be rejected either under the compelling governmental interest test or, more than likely, the "duh" test.

[Alex]

But, what's to stop someone from filming himself killing an animal and then claiming that the act is free speech because he filmed it?

There has to be some limits to free speech. Some things go too far.

The act of killing the animal is still illegal (if it is illegal regardless of filming). Filming it, is not itself illegal. I do recommend reading the first four pages of the decision (I linked to it above) it pretty clearly lays out its case.

But equally important as whether it makes illegal something that should be illegal is that the law also made illegal things that should be legal.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Because the act is illegal. Nothing in this ruling says, "Because you filmed it you can't be charged with the crime you committed." It says, "You can't also be charged with the crime of filming it."

Scenario 1: I shoot a dog in the head while in the United States, filming it. I sell the the film to someone in another state.
Before ruling: I am charged with animal cruelty for shooting the dog in the head. I am charged with a 2nd crime, knowingly creating, selling, or possessing a depiction of animal cruelty for commercial gain in interstate commerce
After ruling: I am charged with the crime of animal cruelty for shooting the dog in the head.

Scenario 2: I travel to Spain and film a documentary about bullfighting. I return to the US and distribute the film for sale.
Before ruling: I can be charged with the crime of knowingly creating, selling, or possessing a depiction of animal cruelty for commercial gain in interstate commerce.
After ruling: I cannot be charged with a crime.

Seems simple to me.

[innerSpaceman]

But I'm still waiting to hear your cogent analysis of the ruling allowing cruelty to ants. I hate killing them, but when they invade my kitchen each and every August ... well, let's just say I don't want to go to jail for my actions.

[Gemini Cricket]

Being the horrible father that I am, I once took my then 6 year old daughter's stuffed baby harp seal she got at Sea World and put red yarn all over it and placed it next to a wiffle ball bat. She had recently watched a Nat Geo special in which the seal hunt was described and she was not amused.
VscaeaglesM!

[JWBear]

The act of killing the animal is still illegal (if it is illegal regardless of filming). Filming it, is not itself illegal. I do recommend reading the first four pages of the decision (I linked to it above) it pretty clearly lays out its case.

But equally important as whether it makes illegal something that should be illegal is that the law also made illegal things that should be legal.

Because the act is illegal. Nothing in this ruling says, "Because you filmed it you can't be charged with the crime you committed." It says, "You can't also be charged with the crime of filming it."

Scenario 1: I shoot a dog in the head while in the United States, filming it. I sell the the film to someone in another state.
Before ruling: I am charged with animal cruelty for shooting the dog in the head. I am charged with a 2nd crime, knowingly creating, selling, or possessing a depiction of animal cruelty for commercial gain in interstate commerce
After ruling: I am charged with the crime of animal cruelty for shooting the dog in the head.

Scenario 2: I travel to Spain and film a documentary about bullfighting. I return to the US and distribute the film for sale.
Before ruling: I can be charged with the crime of knowingly creating, selling, or possessing a depiction of animal cruelty for commercial gain in interstate commerce.
After ruling: I cannot be charged with a crime.

Seems simple to me.

Then it seems to me that this would create a legal precedent to overturn laws outlawing the possession of - or even the filming of - child porn. Afterall... if the one possesing the film or filming the acts are not actually having sex with a minor, then it's just freedom of speech.

Where do you draw the line?

[innerSpaceman]

I think the difference is that the act of viewing child porn is also a crime.

Perhaps the reason for that being a crime is to discourage the existence of child porn, while we should also be discouraging the existence of animal cruelty. But that's a matter to take up with our society.

And good luck with that.


Or perhaps society deems of viewing child porn a crime in and of itself. Surely, you don't imagine that our laws keep themselves out of our harm-no one personal activities, do you?

[Kevy Baby]

Then it seems to me that this would create a legal precedent to overturn laws outlawing the possession of - or even the filming of - child porn.OK, now I just have to laugh.

Maybe we should outlaw cars since so many people are killed by them.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Then it seems to me that this would create a legal precedent to overturn laws outlawing the possession of - or even the filming of - child porn. Afterall... if the one possesing the film or filming the acts are not actually having sex with a minor, then it's just freedom of speech.

Where do you draw the line?Okay, you win. Child porn is now legal, that is clearly the result of this case. I'm off to go shoot some child porn.

[Alex]

Read the decision. They address that very question. That is the beauty of the courts, they don't just issue a final answer but provide essays that show their work and reasoning.

The law was not ruled unconstitutional because it outlawed filming animal cruelty, it was ruled unconstitutional because while it may have outlawed animal cruelty it also outlawed a bunch of other things that would be unconsitutional to ban (such as selling hunting magazines in Washington, D.C., or perhaps broadcasting episodes of Professional Bullriders Association events in a location that has barred such due to their risk of animal injury).

In the court's opinion that is not true of child pornography laws (especially since with child pornography it is frequently the very act of filming that is deemed to have inflicted harm--which is not generally the case with animal cruelty). And they explain why, in detail. And the decision explicitly says they are not ruling it unconstitutional to criminalize filming animal cruelty for entertainment purposes but that the statute needs to be written much more narrowly than it is now so that this is all that gets outlawed.

So the real analogy is to say it is ok to make it illegal to speak in a crowded movie theater because that also has the effect of criminalizing shouting fire in a movie theater.

[scaeagles]

First you have animal snuff films legal. Next is people snuffs films being legal. It's all about the slippery slope.

[Alex]

People film illegal cruelty to people all the time and it isn't illegal (the filming, the illegal cruelty is of course). On this one we're trying to give more protection to animals than we do people.