I can't really add much to what you wrote, and I fully agree with most of it. I think the Court went very wrong in the 60's under former Chief Justice Earl Warren, a liberal icon for his willingness to invent rights supposedly granted by the Constitution but not stated in the document. Somehow the idea became respectable that judges, particularly Supreme Court Justices, were not there just to decide cases and measure laws against the dictates of the Constitution, but were also authorized to apply their sage wisdom to decide the troubling issues that plagued society but that the congress had not managed to deal with. Step one was to apply the Bill of Rights to the states through something called the incorporation doctrine. You'll notice that the first ten amendments apply by their terms only to congress and the federal government. If a state wanted to say, establish a state religion, they could and several states did just that. The incorporation doctrine basically stated that the 14th Amendment, because it prohibited the states from denying "due process" to their citizens, actually meant that most of the rights set out in the Bill of Rights also applied to the states. Hence, the Court could rule on matters of state criminal procedure and legislate from the bench and order that obviously guilty defendants be set free because police violated some legal technicality. Step two became the Court taking over the role and state legislators and telling the state how to run their business. Of course that wasn't enough. There were progressive causes that ignorant legislatures refused to adopt. In Step Three the Court began to invent rights and call them constitutional imperatives. For example, the Court ruled that a state could not impose residency requirements on getting welfare. So if a state wanted to grant generous provisions to its own citizens, but not see them act as a magnet for poor people from other states, it was out of luck. That was ruled an unconstitutional burden on the right to travel. I kid you not. A lot of people will say the Constitution was old and judges needed to invent ways to make it apply to modern issues. The problem with that is that if it can mean anything five Justices say it means, it loses all meaning. Plus, whenever judges decide issues that properly belong in legislatures, our democracy is eroded. Federal judges have lifetime appointments and don't answer to voters. Legislators and congressmen do.
The legislation in question is 18 USC 48. (a) Creation, Sale, or Possession.â Whoever knowingly creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. (b) Exception.â Subsection (a) does not apply to any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value. (c) Definitions.â In this sectionâ (1) the term âdepiction of animal crueltyâ means any visual or auditory depiction, including any photograph, motion-picture film, video recording, electronic image, or sound recording of conduct in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed, if such conduct is illegal under Federal law or the law of the State in which the creation, sale, or possession takes place, regardless of whether the maiming, mutilation, torture, wounding, or killing took place in the State; and (2) the term âStateâ means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States. The statute only covers recordings of criminal activity. The exception in (b) is clearly drawn from prior jurisprudence covering "obscene publications". First, I do not believe in criminalising simple possession of anything, with the exception of certain weapons in certain circumstances. Drugs are an obvious example. "Prohibited" publications are just as sinister. Many will not agree with this. To those who disagree, I ask what purpose is served by criminalising possession (as distinct from purchase, sale, etc) of a depiction of criminal activity. In this example, the abuse of the animal is illegal and the persons responsible can be prosecuted. Why criminalise someone for possessing a depiction of the crime if they were not otherwise involved? What objective is served by this? (yes, I am aware this applies to child pornography and "terrorist manuals" also, but my argument would be the same). The cynic in me thinks this is a simple way for "law enforcement" to get easy wins which are good for PR but avoid the necessity of doing real police work to convict the degenerates who produce the material, who are committing the crime of animal abuse (or child molestation, etc). After the crime has been committed, possessing depictions of the event is yet another victimless crime. For those defending "animal rights" - why not simply campaign for enforcement of the existing laws prohibiting cruelty, not video - actions, not speech? Animals do not suffer from being videotaped, and why should their suffering take priority over my right to free speech? Interestingly in this instance the gentleman was being prosecuted for what is described as a depiction for educational purposes. (source: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supr...free-speech-obscenity/story?id=8675250&page=1) It was a documentary on dog fighting, not animal torture videos sold to degenerates. Finally, for Americans: is this really a matter for the Federal Government? The catch all "placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain" is getting rather old. Was this really the motive of giving powers to regulate interstate commerce: censorship of "offensive" speech?
The Constitution allowed slavery and no vote for women. It was changed. Case closed. No need for a 5000 word diatribe when a few well chosen thoughts will suffice. This ruling today was a STEP BACKWARDS. What else do you need to know?
No it isn't. It is speech. The people who perpetrate the cruelty and murder have already committed a crime and ought to be punished. The person who falls into possession of the material did not necessarily contribute to the crime. The record is speech. In the instant case the person prosecuted was making a documentary about dog fighting. Not whether it was backwards, forwards, or some other term which says nothing about the justice of the decision - simply why a victimless crime is criminalised, and possession of material amounting to speech is censored by the Federal Government. (again, for those who may miss my point and abuse me for disrespecting animal rights - it is simple possession which is criminalised)
You would enjoy going to a good law school... not one designed to pass the bar... but one with smart professors and the socratic method. I really would rather see 10 O.J. s go free rather than put and an innocent man in jail. Which is why the consitution is the way it is. I do not see it as tricks and technicalities... I see as respect for freedom. I for one am damn glad the govt can sweep off the street send me to gitmo - say I am not an American and hold me there forever. I am glad I can't be put in jail for having a video of or a picture of a crime I did not commit. Just because you trust the government now... does not mean it should be trusted. It is odd but the far left and the far right are both attempting to shave off our freedoms. I do not find comfort in the middle... there really is something going wrong with the way people are thinking right now. Should not liberals and Conservatives have unified voice when it comes to consitutional freedoms. How can we trust the government to make judgment decisions about prision. First its that guy... then its hate speech... then anti government speech... then its anti tax speech... then you are in China.
If you're not for freedom for ideas you're against then you're not for freedom. Everybody is for freedom for ideas they're for, thats easy. You are for freedom right, or is it better described by some other term. The rest of the world understands that this freedom is just the first line of defense for how our gangsters do business. The term is so ...usefull.
I understand your position and agree with much of it. Every effort should be made to insure an innocent person does not go to jail, even if it means that a guilty man may walk. I don't like it, but I do understand it. I'm talking about the obviously guilty and obvious double standards. Take this case inparticular. Dog fighting is illegal, correct? Having sex with a child is illegal, correct? Film the dog fight is OK, the sex with a child not. I don't see the distinction. Both activities are illegal. The argument against filming child sex is that the filming of such activity actually stimulates and creates more sexual violence against children. I agree! Does not the filming of dog fighting do the same? I understand a dog is not a child, but I also know this. Until man extends his circle of compassion to all living things, man himself will not know peace. That argument won't hold up in a court room, but that doesn't make it any less true. Violence begets more violence. First you kill an animal for pleasure. Human nature being what it is one finds themselves bored with killing animals and the next step is taken. We all know the cycle of violence and it ends up with a society that has little value for life, any life. Our epitath may read, they were more concerned with their rights than they were in preserving life itself, which is why they're all f'n dead.
You're right. The whole point of prohibiting the videos was that the demand for them created demand for the animal cruelty. I believe the motivation for this law came not from dog fighting but videos that were being distributed that showed women stomping small critters to death. The conduct itself was virtually impossible to catch, but if you removed the monetary incentive, you stopped it.
This is what I believe. Those that hide behind the skirts of the big C, proclaiming they love freedom so much that they are willing to let the OBVIOUSLY guilty go free, are themselves scum of the earth, looking for leniency for their own crimes. If the shoe fits wear it. This is the perverse liberal dogma at its core. Whenever I hear anyone saying that animals have no 'rights', I know I'm dealing with a piece of shit.