Supreme Court says fetish videos depicting animal cruelty deserve free speech

[Brighter.Tomorrow]

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that even videos that depict wanton animal cruelty deserve free-speech protections under the First Amendment.

In an 8-1 decision that united the court's liberal and conservative wings, the justices struck down a law that was enacted in response to so-called crush videos, supposedly designed to satisfy bizarre sexual cravings. The court said the law, however well-intentioned, went too far.

"Maybe there are some categories of speech that have been historically unprotected," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, "but if so, there is no evidence that depictions of animal cruelty is among them."

The ruling means that animal cruelty won't be added to obscenity, fraud and the handful of other categories of constitutionally unprotected speech.


http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-scotus_21nat.ART.State.Edition1.4cdabef.html
http://www.aspca.org/blog/us-supreme-court-upholds.html

This is wrong, on so many levels.
Anyone who agrees, keep watch on sites like ASPCA, Care2 and other animal protection websites so this is fixed.

[The Batman]

It's not saying that animal cruelty is right just that videos of them aren't illegal. It's wrong that people do shit like that but outlawing vids of them won't do shit to fix it.

[Brighter.Tomorrow]

It's not saying that animal cruelty is right just that videos of them aren't illegal. It's wrong that people do shit like that but outlawing vids of them won't do shit to fix it.

But to allow videos of such, will only further people to do such.

[Quick_Sylver]

Evidence of what the fetishes are further it. Curious kid sees a video. THe kid starts to enjoy things in the video. Kid starts masturbating to it, shows his friends. It spreads. Im not saying the fetish is bad. Well yeah I am. But the evidence of it, spreads interest. :|

[The Batman]

Yea but if someone is dumb enough to put that vid on the internet there is a chance they can get caught.

[Quick_Sylver]

In this day and age, kids use the internet for everything Tommy. My kid sister uses it to look up dinos and play stardoll. Everyone uses it.

[Kahn]

People will find a way around this ban. It is still kind of sick that people like it.

[magikarpy]

Oh good. Animal fetishes. You know I highly doubt it would matter if this was up or not. People with animal fetishes can simply google furry. There's plenty of anime of half human half animal porn out there. Posting it is dumb and restricting it is dumb. Just let it be.

[CaptainObvious]

The immediate first thing that jumped to mind when I read about this was the question of whether or not the Supreme Court thought about the parallels to child pornography. Quotes from Roberts seem to suggest that rejection of the parallel between the two issues is due to the idea that child pornography is closely tied to the market that produces it. That seems, to me, an extremely indefensible statement. Maybe previously, in a time before the Internet, it was rings of kiddie pornographers selling their produce and therefore the market was actually tied to the abuse; today, however, so much of that stuff is exchanged over the Internet with no connection to the children abused in its production, and therefore I think the argument is incorrect. The reasoning used to separate them seems to open a door to argue for legalization of child pornography. As the Times said, this court looks like it will be very libertarian in its interpretation of the First Amendment.

Oh, and I think I support the decision. The mere act of possessing this stuff shouldn't be illegal unless it's demonstrated that its possessor either carried out the abuse him/herself or paid money for the materials (in which case it should be assumed material support was provided to stimulate further market production of such videos). It's not pretty, but in my view you don't regulate speech unless there's an incredibly good reason. This fetish isn't enough to all of a sudden result in an animal slaughter of massive proportions or anything. The effect will be minimal, and the First Amendment seems therefore to demand it.

[Brighter.Tomorrow]

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment

I don't see anything in there about supporting illegal acts. Not to mention the fact that it seems to be talking about Freedom to go against your government.

Also, has anyone thought that of the fact that most Serial Killers and other murders start by killing animals as kids(and this is NOT talking about hunting). Tom, if your in college for Phycology you should know that.

[The Batman]

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment

I don't see anything in there about supporting illegal acts. Not to mention the fact that it seems to be talking about Freedom to go against your government.

Also, has anyone thought that of the fact that most Serial Killers and other murders start by killing animals as kids(and this is NOT talking about hunting). Tom, if your in college for Phycology you should know that.

But how is banning the videos going to stop any of that? If they are killing the animals they won't need to watch a video of someone else doing it and even if they do there is no way you can say those videos caused them to be a serial killer.

[Brighter.Tomorrow]

But how is banning the videos going to stop any of that? If they are killing the animals they won't need to watch a video of someone else doing it and even if they do there is no way you can say those videos caused them to be a serial killer.

Tom, the videos are showing animal abuse, they were banned because they showed illegal acts.
But think about this, if killing an animal in such a way is allowed to be shown, what about child porn? They both cater to different fetishes.
And if thinking that 'Crush' should be illegal then so should child porn, and lets not forget murder videos. Should all those be made too Tom?

[The Batman]

Tom, the videos are showing animal abuse, they were banned because they showed illegal acts.
But think about this, if killing an animal in such a way is allowed to be shown, what about child porn? They both cater to different fetishes.
And if thinking that 'Crush' should be illegal then so should child porn, and lets not forget murder videos. Should all those be made too Tom?
Human life is held higher than animals it's horrible but it's the truth so something happening to a human will always be held at a higher standard than animals. So even though they are both illegal and pretty damn sick you'll see more shit happening to animals on the internet more than you'll see it happening to people.

[Brighter.Tomorrow]

Human life is held higher than animals it's horrible but it's the truth so something happening to a human will always be held at a higher standard than animals. So even though they are both illegal and pretty damn sick you'll see more shit happening to animals on the internet more than you'll see it happening to people.

And that should not be. And both should be banned.
Like Mary said. They have Furry-Yiff-Gore-Stuff..
They should be illegal. Alot of the abuse laws we have are from animal rights groups, using "Human are animals"
Making these videos does nothing but promote animal abuse.

[Scarface]

Even though the both of them are fucked up in so many ways. People are still going "satisfy" their sick cravings even if you ban them. So just let them be. There isn't anything we can do to stop them.

[CaptainObvious]

Tom, the videos are showing animal abuse, they were banned because they showed illegal acts.
But think about this, if killing an animal in such a way is allowed to be shown, what about child porn? They both cater to different fetishes.
And if thinking that 'Crush' should be illegal then so should child porn, and lets not forget murder videos. Should all those be made too Tom?

Yes, both should be legal to possess. Unless someone is actively involved in producing child porn or - somewhat more tenuous, but still - pays for it, I see no reason for the act to be illegal. If a pedophile views a child porn video he downloaded off the Internet, it's disgusting, but it's also quite likely that no child was harmed in his viewing of the video nor did he contribute to creating a market for such videos, since most are now sent around via free means online. Given that, I see no legitimate argument to ban possession other than that child porn is gross. Which is true, but not argument enough.

Plus, I'd much rather have pedophiles being stimulated by video than out running after real children.

[Quick_Sylver]

Yes, both should be legal to possess. Unless someone is actively involved in producing child porn or - somewhat more tenuous, but still - pays for it, I see no reason for the act to be illegal. If a pedophile views a child porn video he downloaded off the Internet, it's disgusting, but it's also quite likely that no child was harmed in his viewing of the video nor did he contribute to creating a market for such videos, since most are now sent around via free means online. Given that, I see no legitimate argument to ban possession other than that child porn is gross. Which is true, but not argument enough.

Plus, I'd much rather have pedophiles being stimulated by video than out running after real children.

Uh...for there to be child porn, someone has to have sex with a kid. The very act is illegal, and it makes sense that its illegal to ban the evidence of the act is banned.

Also, Child porn is sexual abuse. Are you saying sexual abuse is okay, or am I just reading wrong?

The same applies to animal abuse, while some may get off to it, does it mean its okay?

Also, being stimulated by the video will increase the urge to be the one having sex with a child, and in time, they'll attempt it. Is it really that much better giving them possession of acts they may duplicate?

[Brighter.Tomorrow]

Yes, both should be legal to possess. Unless someone is actively involved in producing child porn or - somewhat more tenuous, but still - pays for it, I see no reason for the act to be illegal. If a pedophile views a child porn video he downloaded off the Internet, it's disgusting, but it's also quite likely that no child was harmed in his viewing of the video nor did he contribute to creating a market for such videos, since most are now sent around via free means online. Given that, I see no legitimate argument to ban possession other than that child porn is gross. Which is true, but not argument enough.

Plus, I'd much rather have pedophiles being stimulated by video than out running after real children.

For a video to be made, the act has to be done. So why should the video be legal? And while we're on the subject of you saying both should be legal, keep in mind: You have dogs, and you have little sisters.

If we allow something to be seen that gives people the feeling that it's alright, and frankly it's not right. "However, the current rule is that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969)."
That doesn't sound to me like crush videos should be legal.

Uh...for there to be child porn, someone has to have sex with a kid. The very act is illegal, and it makes sense that its illegal to ban the evidence of the act is banned.

Also, Child porn is sexual abuse. Are you saying sexual abuse is okay, or am I just reading wrong?

The same applies to animal abuse, while some may get off to it, does it mean its okay?

Also, being stimulated by the video will increase the urge to be the one having sex with a child, and in time, they'll attempt it. Is it really that much better giving them possession of acts they may duplicate?

Becky, thank you. You made several good points. =]

[The Batman]

There are thousands of videos online of people doing illegal activity. You can watch videos of street fights, bestiality, doing illegal drugs, child abuse, sometimes people getting killed, some suicide videos, underage drinking, dog fighting, and so on....

Just because it's illegal it doesn't mean you have to ban the videos of that happening. What they are doing isn't right but you can't try and hide it from the world just because of that.

[2D]

You can't moderate the internet.

/endof

[CaptainObvious]

Uh...for there to be child porn, someone has to have sex with a kid. The very act is illegal, and it makes sense that its illegal to ban the evidence of the act is banned.

Well actually, that last bit doesn't follow at all. We allow videos to be possessed of all sorts of different crimes. I can watch video of robberies, murders, kidnappings, etc. etc. So the mere fact that an act is illegal is - as the Supreme Court rightly noted - not enough to save a content-based restriction of video depictions of that act. Well, it isn't enough in America, with its strong free speech rights - elsewhere it shouldn't be, but probably is.

Also, Child porn is sexual abuse. Are you saying sexual abuse is okay, or am I just reading wrong?

It's not your reading that's lacking, it's your understanding of the subtelty of my argument. Don't worry, I'll explain further.

The same applies to animal abuse, while some may get off to it, does it mean its okay?

That wasn't my argument in the first place; the fact that people get off on it has no bearing on whether or not I think it should be legal.

Also, being stimulated by the video will increase the urge to be the one having sex with a child, and in time, they'll attempt it. Is it really that much better giving them possession of acts they may duplicate?

Will increase? Deterministically? That is an argument you have to prove, not just a factual statement you can make. I can see child porn being just as likely to decrease abuse: pornography is a substitute, not a complement, for sex, and if a pedophile can watch pornography of children it seems to me to make that pedophile less likely to have to satisfy his/her attraction with a real child. In any case, this too is irrelevant for my argument.

For a video to be made, the act has to be done. So why should the video be legal? And while we're on the subject of you saying both should be legal, keep in mind: You have dogs, and you have little sisters.

I'm getting to restating my argument, but I thought while I was on my way I'd quote this to note that the bolded sentence is an argumentative fallacy (a tu quoque fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque), specifically) and devoid of value in this debate. Yes, I have both young sisters and dogs, and while I would no doubt be horrified by both any criminal acts committed upon them and likewise by video depictions of those criminal acts, that does not necessarily mean that such depictions ought to be illegal.

So, here's my argument that you two mostly missed:

The first premise of the argument is that the illegality of the activity in a depiction ought not to be reason enough on its own to ban a depiction. Despite both of you appealing to "it's illegal, therefore video of it ought to be banned", that is in fact not the case for most things. Video of illegal activity is not generally illegal by that virtue alone.

Therefore, you must be arguing that there is some other compelling reason to ban such video. The reasoning used for banning both animal cruelty videos and child pornography is the same: that allowing possession of such videos inevitably stimulates a market for such videos, and the existence of market demand will prompt market supply. Thus, allowing possession of child pornography, for example, is argued to stimulate the production of more child pornography, and thereby cause more abuse of children. Therefore, we make possession illegal to avoid more production.

But my argument is that a market as such no longer truly exists in the case of child pornography, specifically. Most of the stuff now floats around on the Internet, traded over filesharing systems between the many consumers worldwide. There's many websites where if you spend some time you will eventually run into child porn being actively traded around. Because of that, I don't think that in most cases possession actually stimulates further production and abuse. The market, as it were, has been destroyed by the availability of free material on the Internet, and the ease of distribution of the same.

Therefore, if the average person coming into possession of child pornography nowadays does not stimulate a further market for child sexual abuse by doing so, I see no reason to make the material illegal merely by virtue of the fact that the act depicted is so.

Read my argument and make sure you understand it well before responding. If you are arguing against me, you either have to take the approach that child pornography and other such material do have a market of some kind that effectively connects possessors and producers (and therefore that possessing such depictions stimulates production of more of them), or you have to argue that we ought to make video of illegal conduct illegal in a blanket manner. The former I think is factually untrue, and the latter is entirely inconsistent with general Western principles of justice. But I'm interested as to what you think.

[Perseus]

Uh...for there to be child porn, someone has to have sex with a kid. The very act is illegal, and it makes sense that its illegal to ban the evidence of the act is banned.

Also, Child porn is sexual abuse. Are you saying sexual abuse is okay, or am I just reading wrong?



Not really. A picture/video of a naked child in a sexual pose/purposes(i.e, y'know, for beatin' off and such) is considered child porn, too. But, not all pictures/videos where a child is naked is child porn.

[Sith Lord 13]

I say this is fine, just remove the statute of limitations on animal abuse. You are right, when you say the illegality of the act does not justify illegalizing its display. However, I also feel the crime of animal abuse should carry the same penalty as child abuse, and that neither should carry a statute of limitations (although I would be open to the idea of a defense based upon personal reformation in between the time of the act and the time of prosecution). I've never thought it right that you only need conceal your crime for a set period of time before getting off scot free.

If these new alterations are included in law, please, legalize display of these videos. It will help secure warrants. Otherwise, I say fear of imitation is too great, and should be considered to present a clear and present danger to society. Mimicry is too likely, and as such it should be considered an invitation to violence. I do find it appalling that this is now protected while minority groups are gaining the right to not be offended. I can't insult a group, but I can show an animal being tortured to death? I feel there's a problem with that.

[Brighter.Tomorrow]

Well actually, that last bit doesn't follow at all. We allow videos to be possessed of all sorts of different crimes. I can watch video of robberies, murders, kidnappings, etc. etc. So the mere fact that an act is illegal is - as the Supreme Court rightly noted - not enough to save a content-based restriction of video depictions of that act. Well, it isn't enough in America, with its strong free speech rights - elsewhere it shouldn't be, but probably is.



It's not your reading that's lacking, it's your understanding of the subtelty of my argument. Don't worry, I'll explain further.



That wasn't my argument in the first place; the fact that people get off on it has no bearing on whether or not I think it should be legal.



Will increase? Deterministically? That is an argument you have to prove, not just a factual statement you can make. I can see child porn being just as likely to decrease abuse: pornography is a substitute, not a complement, for sex, and if a pedophile can watch pornography of children it seems to me to make that pedophile less likely to have to satisfy his/her attraction with a real child. In any case, this too is irrelevant for my argument.



I'm getting to restating my argument, but I thought while I was on my way I'd quote this to note that the bolded sentence is an argumentative fallacy (a tu quoque fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque), specifically) and devoid of value in this debate. Yes, I have both young sisters and dogs, and while I would no doubt be horrified by both any criminal acts committed upon them and likewise by video depictions of those criminal acts, that does not necessarily mean that such depictions ought to be illegal.

So, here's my argument that you two mostly missed:

The first premise of the argument is that the illegality of the activity in a depiction ought not to be reason enough on its own to ban a depiction. Despite both of you appealing to "it's illegal, therefore video of it ought to be banned", that is in fact not the case for most things. Video of illegal activity is not generally illegal by that virtue alone.

Therefore, you must be arguing that there is some other compelling reason to ban such video. The reasoning used for banning both animal cruelty videos and child pornography is the same: that allowing possession of such videos inevitably stimulates a market for such videos, and the existence of market demand will prompt market supply. Thus, allowing possession of child pornography, for example, is argued to stimulate the production of more child pornography, and thereby cause more abuse of children. Therefore, we make possession illegal to avoid more production.

But my argument is that a market as such no longer truly exists in the case of child pornography, specifically. Most of the stuff now floats around on the Internet, traded over filesharing systems between the many consumers worldwide. There's many websites where if you spend some time you will eventually run into child porn being actively traded around. Because of that, I don't think that in most cases possession actually stimulates further production and abuse. The market, as it were, has been destroyed by the availability of free material on the Internet, and the ease of distribution of the same.

Therefore, if the average person coming into possession of child pornography nowadays does not stimulate a further market for child sexual abuse by doing so, I see no reason to make the material illegal merely by virtue of the fact that the act depicted is so.

Read my argument and make sure you understand it well before responding. If you are arguing against me, you either have to take the approach that child pornography and other such material do have a market of some kind that effectively connects possessors and producers (and therefore that possessing such depictions stimulates production of more of them), or you have to argue that we ought to make video of illegal conduct illegal in a blanket manner. The former I think is factually untrue, and the latter is entirely inconsistent with general Western principles of justice. But I'm interested as to what you think.

There's already a market. That means that it has to happen and recorded, and because people want more and more, more and more videos will be made.
If it becomes legal it'll become a a big thing and videos will be made left and right.

[Antares]

I must say I agree with the ruling.
I don't know too much background on the law but it seems that it was probably best to not pass it at the moment...well ruling whatever.

I mean people do have bizarre fetishes btut hat is part of our society and probably half of the country has some weird thing.

EDIT:

Wait, so I was just reading the article and it was talking about videos of animal cruelty in the basic form, not necessarily for sexual happiness and I agree that the law or Crush act should stay. Animal cruelty is already illegal, so distributing video of that should be illegal also.

[quartermaster]

Well actually, that last bit doesn't follow at all. We allow videos to be possessed of all sorts of different crimes. I can watch video of robberies, murders, kidnappings, etc. etc. So the mere fact that an act is illegal is - as the Supreme Court rightly noted - not enough to save a content-based restriction of video depictions of that act. Well, it isn't enough in America, with its strong free speech rights - elsewhere it shouldn't be, but probably is.



It's not your reading that's lacking, it's your understanding of the subtelty of my argument. Don't worry, I'll explain further.



That wasn't my argument in the first place; the fact that people get off on it has no bearing on whether or not I think it should be legal.



Will increase? Deterministically? That is an argument you have to prove, not just a factual statement you can make. I can see child porn being just as likely to decrease abuse: pornography is a substitute, not a complement, for sex, and if a pedophile can watch pornography of children it seems to me to make that pedophile less likely to have to satisfy his/her attraction with a real child. In any case, this too is irrelevant for my argument.



I'm getting to restating my argument, but I thought while I was on my way I'd quote this to note that the bolded sentence is an argumentative fallacy (a tu quoque fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque), specifically) and devoid of value in this debate. Yes, I have both young sisters and dogs, and while I would no doubt be horrified by both any criminal acts committed upon them and likewise by video depictions of those criminal acts, that does not necessarily mean that such depictions ought to be illegal.

So, here's my argument that you two mostly missed:

The first premise of the argument is that the illegality of the activity in a depiction ought not to be reason enough on its own to ban a depiction. Despite both of you appealing to "it's illegal, therefore video of it ought to be banned", that is in fact not the case for most things. Video of illegal activity is not generally illegal by that virtue alone.

Therefore, you must be arguing that there is some other compelling reason to ban such video. The reasoning used for banning both animal cruelty videos and child pornography is the same: that allowing possession of such videos inevitably stimulates a market for such videos, and the existence of market demand will prompt market supply. Thus, allowing possession of child pornography, for example, is argued to stimulate the production of more child pornography, and thereby cause more abuse of children. Therefore, we make possession illegal to avoid more production.

But my argument is that a market as such no longer truly exists in the case of child pornography, specifically. Most of the stuff now floats around on the Internet, traded over filesharing systems between the many consumers worldwide. There's many websites where if you spend some time you will eventually run into child porn being actively traded around. Because of that, I don't think that in most cases possession actually stimulates further production and abuse. The market, as it were, has been destroyed by the availability of free material on the Internet, and the ease of distribution of the same.

Therefore, if the average person coming into possession of child pornography nowadays does not stimulate a further market for child sexual abuse by doing so, I see no reason to make the material illegal merely by virtue of the fact that the act depicted is so.

Read my argument and make sure you understand it well before responding. If you are arguing against me, you either have to take the approach that child pornography and other such material do have a market of some kind that effectively connects possessors and producers (and therefore that possessing such depictions stimulates production of more of them), or you have to argue that we ought to make video of illegal conduct illegal in a blanket manner. The former I think is factually untrue, and the latter is entirely inconsistent with general Western principles of justice. But I'm interested as to what you think.

CaptainObvious, I do believe I just came at your post. Admittedly, using the word "came" in a thread about bestiality and child pornography is most imprudent, but I must admit I am quite pleased with your analysis.

[CaptainObvious]

Wait, so I was just reading the article and it was talking about videos of animal cruelty in the basic form, not necessarily for sexual happiness and I agree that the law or Crush act should stay. Animal cruelty is already illegal, so distributing video of that should be illegal also.

That argument really doesn't hold in the form you've presented it. Videos of murder are legal to possess; video of vandalism, assault, kidnapping, etc. etc. etc. are legal to possess. So it's not as simple as illegal act -> illegal depiction. There has to be additional rationale, which you need to elucidate - and which I frankly believe I have already more than rebutted above.

CaptainObvious, I do believe I just came at your post. Admittedly, using the word "came" in a thread about bestiality and child pornography is most imprudent, but I must admit I am quite pleased with your analysis.

Why thank you.

[The Batman]

There's already a market. That means that it has to happen and recorded, and because people want more and more, more and more videos will be made.
If it becomes legal it'll become a a big thing and videos will be made left and right.

Simply making something legal won't make it the next big thing. There has to already be a huge demand for it which there probably isn't.