This one is an interesting case. Apparently, it would be only the second time the Supreme Court has identified a form of speech undeserving of protection by the First Amendment if the law (designed to stop the sale and marketing of videos showing dog fights and other acts of animal cruelty) is upheld. (The last time was in 1982 with the ban of child pornography).
The arguments are as follows:
Stevens: Convicted of selling videos through his "Dogs of Velvet and Steel" business back in around 2004. He was charged with violating the interstate commerce laws by selling depictions o animal cruelty and was later sentenced to 37 months in prison. He appeals.
State: The state must act in order to protect and stop animal cruelty.
Controversy: The law is too broad. The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech and when the government is trying to restrict the actual content of the speech, it must meet a very high standard to prove that the restriction of speech is compelling and necessary.
It is argued that the law is too broad, that it encompasses speech that is within the protected speech. For example, organizations and proponents against animal cruelty show documentations and videos of animal cruelty. Is this not allowed? Should it be allowed?
A.K.: I find this case very fascinating since I really enjoy Constitutional Law. While I think that animal cruelty should be banned, its really tricky for Congress to make a law that is not broad and ban only those depictions of animal cruelty that is for pleasure. Who's to say that a particular depiction of cruelty is for pleasure or for a acceptable purpose.
I'm eager to see what the court decide in the next couple of months.
For more information (or the website I took all this information from): http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/06/scotus.dogfighting/index.html
--
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment