SCOTUS Overturns Ant-Animal Cruelty Law

[Alex]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[JWBear]

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.

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?

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by JWBear

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]

Originally Posted by JWBear

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.

[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.

[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?

[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.