First of all:
Quote:
|
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.