Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex
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.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
|
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?