Our Deceitful Supreme Court

[martybegan]

Let me say this please.

I had never heard of "crush videos" until this thread. I fully support these videos being illegal and anyone possessing or producing these videos being prosecuted. I cannot understand what would make a person do such a thing and it quite honestly turns my stomach.

However, the Supreme Court was correct in this case. Congress... please make a law that stops the true abuse.

Wildlifelover... I agree with you on some of this. However, when you say the Justices enjoy this as entertainment, that is where you turn people off to your cause. A little less extremism and a little more judgement and sensibility will help you alot.

Me either and I wished I hadn't ventured into this thread because then I'd still be ignorant of it. wtf is wrong with people??

The clinical term for people who enjoy that stuff is "sick ****" Here courtesy of Encyclopedia Dramatica is a handy guide to see if you too, are a sick ****.

If you have EVER gotten off to an image of a person who has not yet graduated middle school, you are a sick ****.
If you have EVER gotten off to an image of a person who is being fucked by a relative, you are a sick ****.
If you have EVER gotten off to an image of a person who is restrained more than a criminal in an electric chair, you are a sick ****.
If you have EVER gotten off to an image of a person (or animal) who is in significant pain, drowning, or is dying you are a sick ****.
If you have EVER gotten off to an image of a person who is cut open, is missing limbs, and/or has organs hanging out of their body, you are a really sick ****.
If you have EVER gotten off to an image of a person who is dead, you are an incredibly sick ****.
If you have EVER gotten off to an image of a person who is fatter than the world's fattest man, you are a sick ****.
If you have EVER gotten off to an image of a person in which something is rapidly expanding - and it's not a dick - you are a sick ****.
If you have EVER gotten off to an image of a person in which something is going into a hole - and it's not a dick - you are a sick ****.
If you have EVER gotten off to an image of a person stretching their ass, you are a sick ****.
If you have EVER gotten off to an image of a person drinking piss or eating shit, you are a sick ****.
If you have EVER gotten off to an image of a person pretending to be an animal, you are a sick ****.
If you have EVER gotten off to an image of a person wearing a fursuit, you are a really sick ****.
If you have EVER gotten off to an drawn image of something that is not human, you are a really sick ****.
If you have EVER gotten off to an real image of something that is not human, you are an incredibly sick ****.

 

[Meister]

I am sure the mental stylings of Charles Manson would add a different perspective to the board as well.. does not mean one should really welcome that

Charles Manson? Are you kidding me? I would love to debate him on issues.
Having said that, I don't think that the OP would fall into the same league as a Charlie Manson post.

 

[DiamondDave]

I am sure the mental stylings of Charles Manson would add a different perspective to the board as well.. does not mean one should really welcome that

Charles Manson? Are you kidding me? I would love to debate him on issues.
Having said that, I don't think that the OP would fall into the same league as a Charlie Manson post.

I equate wingnut animal rights nazis to wingnut cult leaders on about the same level...

I would not walk across the street to piss on either of them if they were on fire

 

[Vast LWC]

Much as I am loathe to congratulate the Supremes we are stuck with now for anything, I don't think they were wrong in this case WildlifeLover. They took some pains to instruct Congress on how to draft a law that would pass constitutional muster. But the one under review went too far. Under the law, anyone who "creates, sells or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty" for commercial gain can be imprisoned for up to five years. A depiction of cruelty was defined as one in which "a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed."

The court cited the possibility that a hunting magazine would be illegal and that is hardly the edges of this law. What about bullfighting? Horse racing? Hell, what about the Disney movie "Old Yeller"? The standards for humane treatment of animals in movies back in 1957 was not what it is today. Suppose we discovered Spike was intentionally denied water to assist him to act like he was dying?

What began all this was a 1999 push to ban crush videos (videos in which a human kills a small animal by crushing it for sexual pleasure). In fact, no one has ever been prosecuted on this basis but I am confident that if Congress wants to re-draft this law for this very same purpose, it can do so in a constitutional manner. The actual arrests made under the law were all for dog fighting videos, and deplorable as they may be, they were shot in nations where the practice is legal. Besides, an attempt to outlaw depictions of dogs fighting will put movies like "The Breed", "Cujo", "Independence Day", etc. in a gray legal area.

Animal lover or no, that's too much restriction on free speech.

If Congress writes a new law on this subject, it would be easy to fix the problems with the current law.

Simply change the language of the law to apply to anyone who "creates, sells or possesses a depiction of illegal animal cruelty" for commercial gain can be imprisoned for up to five years.

Simply inserting the term "illegal" makes the crime only apply to videos of acts which are already considered illegal, like dog fighting, and allows the law to discriminate between animal cruelty and legal situations like hunting, or say, slaughterhouse employee instructional videos.

 

[martybegan]

Much as I am loathe to congratulate the Supremes we are stuck with now for anything, I don't think they were wrong in this case WildlifeLover. They took some pains to instruct Congress on how to draft a law that would pass constitutional muster. But the one under review went too far. Under the law, anyone who "creates, sells or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty" for commercial gain can be imprisoned for up to five years. A depiction of cruelty was defined as one in which "a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed."

The court cited the possibility that a hunting magazine would be illegal and that is hardly the edges of this law. What about bullfighting? Horse racing? Hell, what about the Disney movie "Old Yeller"? The standards for humane treatment of animals in movies back in 1957 was not what it is today. Suppose we discovered Spike was intentionally denied water to assist him to act like he was dying?

What began all this was a 1999 push to ban crush videos (videos in which a human kills a small animal by crushing it for sexual pleasure). In fact, no one has ever been prosecuted on this basis but I am confident that if Congress wants to re-draft this law for this very same purpose, it can do so in a constitutional manner. The actual arrests made under the law were all for dog fighting videos, and deplorable as they may be, they were shot in nations where the practice is legal. Besides, an attempt to outlaw depictions of dogs fighting will put movies like "The Breed", "Cujo", "Independence Day", etc. in a gray legal area.

Animal lover or no, that's too much restriction on free speech.

If Congress writes a new law on this subject, it would be easy to fix the problems with the current law.

Simply change the language of the law to apply to anyone who "creates, sells or possesses a depiction of illegal animal cruelty" for commercial gain can be imprisoned for up to five years.

Simply inserting the term "illegal" makes the crime only apply to videos of acts which are already considered illegal, like dog fighting, and allows the law to discriminate between animal cruelty and legal situations like hunting, or say, slaughterhouse employee instructional videos.

Now to be the asshat literalist (not trying to be a jerk just making an example of mis-using the law)

So what if it is not deer season and you watch or sell a hunting video that was shot during deer season? PETA would love to try this one.

They would probably need to do a specific list.

 

[Vast LWC]

If Congress writes a new law on this subject, it would be easy to fix the problems with the current law.

Simply change the language of the law to apply to anyone who "creates, sells or possesses a depiction of illegal animal cruelty" for commercial gain can be imprisoned for up to five years.

Simply inserting the term "illegal" makes the crime only apply to videos of acts which are already considered illegal, like dog fighting, and allows the law to discriminate between animal cruelty and legal situations like hunting, or say, slaughterhouse employee instructional videos.

Now to be the asshat literalist (not trying to be a jerk just making an example of mis-using the law)

So what if it is not deer season and you watch or sell a hunting video that was shot during deer season? PETA would love to try this one.

They would probably need to do a specific list.

I see where you're going with that, but in that case, the act itself would not be illegal, and thus the law wouldn't apply. It is illegal to hunt outside of hunting season, it is not illegal to watch video outside of hunting season. Thus it would be perfectly legal to watch said video, as long as it was shot during hunting season.

Of course, hunting season laws vary from locale to locale anyway, it is likely that even if some crazy animal-rights group did try to get a hunter for filming outside of hunting season, it would never be considered by any court higher than the local level, and probably be thrown out even then except to prosecute the hunters for hunting outside of the hunting season in the first place.

 

[DiamondDave]

Much as I am loathe to congratulate the Supremes we are stuck with now for anything, I don't think they were wrong in this case WildlifeLover. They took some pains to instruct Congress on how to draft a law that would pass constitutional muster. But the one under review went too far. Under the law, anyone who "creates, sells or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty" for commercial gain can be imprisoned for up to five years. A depiction of cruelty was defined as one in which "a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed."

The court cited the possibility that a hunting magazine would be illegal and that is hardly the edges of this law. What about bullfighting? Horse racing? Hell, what about the Disney movie "Old Yeller"? The standards for humane treatment of animals in movies back in 1957 was not what it is today. Suppose we discovered Spike was intentionally denied water to assist him to act like he was dying?

What began all this was a 1999 push to ban crush videos (videos in which a human kills a small animal by crushing it for sexual pleasure). In fact, no one has ever been prosecuted on this basis but I am confident that if Congress wants to re-draft this law for this very same purpose, it can do so in a constitutional manner. The actual arrests made under the law were all for dog fighting videos, and deplorable as they may be, they were shot in nations where the practice is legal. Besides, an attempt to outlaw depictions of dogs fighting will put movies like "The Breed", "Cujo", "Independence Day", etc. in a gray legal area.

Animal lover or no, that's too much restriction on free speech.

If Congress writes a new law on this subject, it would be easy to fix the problems with the current law.

Simply change the language of the law to apply to anyone who "creates, sells or possesses a depiction of illegal animal cruelty" for commercial gain can be imprisoned for up to five years.

Simply inserting the term "illegal" makes the crime only apply to videos of acts which are already considered illegal, like dog fighting, and allows the law to discriminate between animal cruelty and legal situations like hunting, or say, slaughterhouse employee instructional videos.

Now to be the asshat literalist (not trying to be a jerk just making an example of mis-using the law)

So what if it is not deer season and you watch or sell a hunting video that was shot during deer season? PETA would love to try this one.

They would probably need to do a specific list.

How about a documentary exposing dog fighting rings?? Or how to videos on how to burn out bagworm nests?? I mean, burning the little fuzzy crawling things is 'cruel', right? Videos on gutting a fish that may still be alive, 'cruel'? A video you take of your kid puddle stomping were he may crush some worms too, 'cruel'? And we all know that our ever growing mamby pamby government and governmental systems are more than willing to make more and more actions against animals 'illegal' or 'wrong' in the name of 'animal cruelty'

For example my neighbor and best friend got called into school to try and keep his 6 year old son for being suspended, FOR PURPOSELY STOMPING ON A STINK BUG IN THE GYM

We have seen animal cruelty charges being expanded for the most inane stuff, thanks to the influence of the animal rights nazis

Give me a freaking break

 

[Vast LWC]

How about a documentary exposing dog fighting rings?? Or how to videos on how to burn out bagworm nests?? I mean, burning the little fuzzy crawling things is 'cruel', right? Videos on gutting a fish that may still be alive, 'cruel'? A video you take of your kid puddle stomping were he may crush some worms too, 'cruel'? And we all know that our ever growing mamby pamby government and governmental systems are more than willing to make more and more actions against animals 'illegal' or 'wrong' in the name of 'animal cruelty'

For example my neighbor and best friend got called into school to try and keep his 6 year old son for being suspended, FOR PURPOSELY STOMPING ON A STINK BUG IN THE GYM

We have seen animal cruelty charges being expanded for the most inane stuff, thanks to the influence of the animal rights nazis

Give me a freaking break

Dave, do you rally expect an answer to this hyperbole?
None of the above situations would be considered illegal except for the dog-fighting ring documentary perhaps, and there's really no reason to include graphic representation of illegal acts in such a video, now is there?
Thus all of them would be considered legal by the amendment to the law I mentioned in that post.


And as far as the "Stink Bug" incident goes, I would think the reason your neighbor's kid got suspended was not for "animal cruelty", but for intentionally creating a disturbance by bringing the stink bug in and stepping on it in the middle of class.

After all the effects of crushing a stink bug are quite awful.

Brown Marmorated Stink Bug — Entomology — Penn State University

Even though these insects are not known to cause harm to humans (anecdotal information suggests that they can cause a rash if crushed onto the skin) and do not reproduce inside structures such as houses, they cause concern when they become active and conspicuous in fall and spring. If many of them are squashed or pulled into a vacuum cleaner, their smell can be quite apparent.

 

[DiamondDave]

No.. it was distinctly for violation of a rule against hurting animals... a vague rule influenced by the animal rights nazi mantra

And as stated... more and more we see the animal rights nazi activists helping push more and more actions under the 'animal cruelty' crime umbrella....

And I do not see anything wrong with a documentary exposing dog fighting to show carnage and the realities of the activity...

Hey... worm squishing videos or documentaries showing dog fighting violence may not be my cup of tea.... but I see no reason to give more rope to the animal rights nazi movement to try and have these things illegal

 

[Vast LWC]

No.. it was distinctly for violation of a rule against hurting animals... a vague rule influenced by the animal rights nazi mantra

And as stated... more and more we see the animal rights nazi activists helping push more and more actions under the 'animal cruelty' crime umbrella....

And I do not see anything wrong with a documentary exposing dog fighting to show carnage and the realities of the activity...

Hey... worm squishing videos or documentaries showing dog fighting violence may not be my cup of tea.... but I see no reason to give more rope to the animal rights nazi movement to try and have these things illegal

And I was agreeing the original law was too broad, as my post indicated, with a suggested fix. You were responding to a response to that post.

 

[Darkwind]

I am really outraged at the Supreme Court's decision to allow the sale and production of animal videos depicting cruelty to animals, particularly dog fighting.

It's really a sad day in our country that we have Federal Supreme Court Judges that are so sick that they get their only entertainment out of videos of animal cruelty. These judges need to be in a mental institution for the insane rather than running our court system. Everyone but Alito spend most of their day watching child ponography and getting their kick from hard core slut videos in order to get their sick thrills. They should be ashamed of themselves and hang their heads in disgrace. Every American man, woman and child in this country should be embarrassed by the sick mentality of these judges who are encouraging violence, bloodshed and lack of morals and a slap in God's face with their disturbing idea of what is entertainment.

And pray tell what is the difference between the violence inflicted upon the animals crushed under foot or dogs incited into dog fighting? Any form of deliberate abuse to an animal will always be considered an act of violence toward the animal.

I truly hope Congress can enact a law that meets their constitutional requirements and in turn will end the sale of any video that depicts or encourages violence toward any animal. If we are going to have effective laws preventing animal cruelty they must be enacted to the point that any form of promotion of that violence will be considered illegal as well.

Our Supreme Court justices are acting as if paid off by certain interest groups. Many during their lifetime have either worked for or received contributions from large corporations which I feel has influenced their decisions like the one just issued. And I further feel their decision to allow corporations to continue to contribute large sums of money to political candidates is another such example.

I am sure this is one of the reasons they voted as they did concerning animal violence, probably receiving large sums from NRA and dog fighting groups.

In closing I must say I admire President Obama when during his State of The Union speech rebuked the Supreme Court for some of their questionable rulings. I hope President Obama will rebuke the court for this outrageous decision as well. Someone needs to do something to bring these justices for life into really knowing how to interpret the document they are sworn to defend and protect.

This entire rant is bullshit.

The SCOTUS made the correct ruling.

The law was so vague and openended that people who had to track a deer more than 5 feet after making a kill would have been charged with torture.

Rewrite the law and define the exact limits that the government can go to when enforcing this law AND define explicitly what will be considered torture. That way, anything not on the list won't be leveled at law abiding citizens.

 

[Vast LWC]

This entire rant is bullshit.

The SCOTUS made the correct ruling.

The law was so vague and openended that people who had to track a deer more than 5 feet after making a kill would have been charged with torture.

Rewrite the law and define the exact limits that the government can go to when enforcing this law AND define explicitly what will be considered torture. That way, anything not on the list won't be leveled at law abiding citizens.

Agreed, except for the part about explicitly defining torture.

Since torture would already have laws defining and banning it in the first place, as long as you designated that the law only applied to the the filming and distribution of "illegal acts" of animal abuse, you would be all good.

 

[DiamondDave]

Not when that line is continually moved around at the influence of the animal rights nazis.. more and more things are illegal in terms of how you 'treat' an animal now

 

[jillian]

I nominate this posting for the Idiocy of the Day Award.

Who's with me?

Right up there than your thread about Obama's oil interests in Iraq leading to civil war

I have just of much proof of this that you do of Bush and his oil interests.

no... making stuff up out of whole cloth is not the same. And I believe it's Cheney's oil interests.

 

[pinqy]

Child porn and crush videos are used for the same purpose: So Sick *****(tm) to get their rocks off. The only reason to do a crush video is to sell it, therefore the only reason to crush an animal in that way is to sell it.

Selling the video is basically selling the evidence of an illegal act.

Last I checked, crushing bugs is not illegal. But even so, why should selling evidence of an illegal act be illegal? To the best of my knowledge, child porn is the only thing where it is illegal and the reason is that it constitutes continuing harm to the child by its existence.