Its not the act of cruelty that was the issue here - none of the justices want to see dogs tortured. They just think it is more important to keep American's rights from being tortured. "The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs," Roberts said. I agree.
This isn`t "Freedom of Speech" this is cruelty and murder. Plain and simple. Where is the "Freedom of Speech" in abusing and murdering a defenseless, innocent animal and video taping it and selling it? This is sick! The people deserve to be shot that have anything to do with this. Time for a new Justice Department.
The freedom of speech that is being protected - is that by drawing this line where they did - the government can't call you a criminal for selling a video which annoys some group of people who have the ear of the legislature. For instance what if you started distributing an anti wall street banker video. What if they called it hate speech and arrested you.
Spoken like a true moron. According to you, if it isn't in the Constitution, it can't legally exist. So we stopped all progress in the 1700's.
Perhaps when you finish the third grade you'll understand our legal system and the constitution a little better. Here are the basics for an 8 year old: Many things exist outside of the constitution, but rights provided by the constitution do not. I accept that your abililty to discuss any topic is limited to name calling, but that's what 8 year old girls do so I won't hold it against you. Come back when you grow up.
You're an intelligent person, obviously much more educated that I, so maybe you can explain something to me. In my humble, south side rube opinion, it seems that our entire legal system is run as if it's some sort of classroom exercise. From top to bottom, Supreme Court Justices to some judge in traffic court, lawyers on both sides of any issue...it's all just a game, like some sort of debate team battle that has dire consequences for all, except for those engaged in the debate. When the obviously guilty are allowed to walk free it undermines the entire legal system, does it not? Every time some person walks on technical issue it rips the system a little bit more, until all those in a society lose respect for the law. Every time an O.J. walks, every time a John Wayne Gacy takes 20 years for execution of sentence, every time a well heeled guy buys his freedom, and a poor man does time for the same crime, the people lose a little more respect for the legal system. Consequently you get what we now have, which borders on a free for all. The slippery slope runs both ways and I fear what we've done to protect one aspect of our freedom is now threatening all our freedoms. Is there no room for real world judgments, damn the technicalities? Your thoughts.
Just about every asinine law, ruling, event in the last 50 years is about Liberals. Glad you've been paying attention. Savage said it all, Liberalism is a Mental disorder. We have fools in here that are wiping their butt with the constitution , in lieu of applying the most rudimentary logic to the debate. This is a typical liberal failing.
You are missing rudimentary logic, or should I say philosophy, yourself. There's a fundamental reason liberalism does not go away, and that's because it is the other side of the same coin conservatism occupies. Man is a social animal. Some emphasize "man", others emphasize "social". Neither perspective is going away, ever. We know that a state can break a man. Do we know that a man can break a state?
This may come as a shock to you, but there is a pretty clear liberal/conservative split on the Court. I'm not the first person who has commented on it, and it is usually the starting point for predictions about the outcome of cases. The irony of this case to me was that liberals were willing to extend First Amendment protection to people selling videos of illegal dog fighting, but a few months ago they thought it was perfectly proper for congress to limit political speech in ways that clearly gave incumbents an advantage and limited the opportunity of ordinary citizens to make their views known. Maybe you see consistency there, but I do not.