U.S. Supreme Court overturns animal cruelty law - Page 2

On April 21 2010 01:37 KwarK wrote:

Pit Bull Terriers kill children in the UK, one or two a year. They're a breed created for mindless aggression and the entire breed should be culled. They're illegal in the UK. I'd support disproportionate punishment for anyone having anything to do with them simply because it's near impossible to stop them attacking someone eventually.

On April 21 2010 01:53 Djzapz wrote:
This is an odd issue...

Let's put it in perspective. Cruelty towards animals is disgusting, and so is the abuse of children. Freedom of speech gives me the right to broadcast videos of cruelty towards animals, but not videos of children being abused?

Seems like an irregularity to me. I'm all for free speech, I love it. Would die for it. Free speech is to express ideas, no matter how controversial they may be. There's very little relevant speech in a video of a live dog being cut into pieces.

So, if it's legal to post it, isn't infringing on our freedom to say we don't get to broadcast underage porn?

This is ridiculous, what does society have to gain.

The next question begs, that if you support the notion that animals have rights, then you must criminalize a host of areas. Any murder of an animal would be punishable the same as a murder of a human being since we share the same rights.

On April 21 2010 01:54 InToTheWannaB wrote:
So what does this law geting over turned really mean? Its ok to own a video of animal cruelty , but you can't commit acts of animal crulety yourself because of state law right? I don't understand how this law violates free speech at all. I could understand if they said it was a states rights issue, but how the hell does owning animal snuff films have anything to do with free speech?

On April 21 2010 02:00 gogogadgetflow wrote:

I believe, for example, you are now allowed to distribute a video of bullfighting, cockfighting, etc, which is illegal in all US states because it constitutes an act of cruelty. The problem with the law was it could be understood to limit things like documentaries covering these things, however while I don't personally support such acts, I think we need to learn to accept the difference between the fundamental rights of animals and those of humans.

On April 21 2010 01:58 Romantic wrote:

I read a little bit of the decision, and the justices claim a number of differences. One of them is the government failed to show how stopping the videos would stop the abuse. They clearly made that case for child porn, but not animal abuse. Another problem was that the law was too broad and would technically ban things like Roman gladiator battles, hunting videos, etc. It would even criminalize someone if they humanely killed an animal that they had stolen, like a cow, because of the way it is worded. Another problem is that the law can impose penalties of one state on to another because of the way they determine which state's laws will be used to prosecute.

Basically, the government did not provide a case for why they should make a special exception for dog fighting videos against free speech. Not to mention the law was poorly written to begin with.

On April 21 2010 01:53 Biochemist wrote:


Pit Bull Terriers who attack children are like any other dog who attacks children. In virtually every instance I've ever heard of, few if any attempts were ever made to socialize the dogs. If you leave a high-energy dog chained in your backyard for its entire life, should you be surprised when a child climbs over your fence and gets mauled? It's the owner's fault, not the breed.

Pit Bulls aren't what they were when dog fighting was common. How long has it been since we were selecting for aggression? How many generations has it been now that dog owners are actually selecting AGAINST aggressive tendencies? If pit bulls cause more problems than other breeds, it's more likely to be a symptom of the type of person likely to get a pit bull (i.e. the type of person that leaves it chained in the backyard) and not one of the breed itself.

On April 21 2010 02:06 travis wrote:
Animals are living beings like you or I. They clearly experience pain and pleasure like you or I.

Some of the people in this thread either haven't realized this yet, or don't care (which is even worse).

On April 21 2010 02:12 KwarK wrote:

I think everyone realises that living animals are alive. As for caring, why should we care that they're alive. So are trees, I don't lose sleep over it.

On April 21 2010 02:15 Djzapz wrote:

They're alive, nobody cares. They can feel pain... I don't think it's asking too much to say don't go film yourself purposely torturing animals.

On April 21 2010 02:12 KwarK wrote:

I think everyone realises that living animals are alive. As for caring, why should we care that they're alive. So are trees, I don't lose sleep over it.

On April 21 2010 01:09 DexterHGTourney wrote:
This is an area where I'm sure hardly anyone agrees with me, though logically, most people are so hypocritical and illogical it blows my mind when it comes to this issue.

Do I agree with the decision? Yes. For the reasons stipulated by the SCOTUS? No. Animals do not have rights. Therefore, animal cruelty while heinous and sickening should not be illegal. They overturned the law based on the First Amendment, but I think they should have went further and dissected the issue at hand. Do animals have rights or not? Now, Governments do not grant rights, they merely enumerate them. Rights are negative. Our rights deriving from Natural Law, and recognized as such by the formation of this Union (Decl. of Independance, ConCon, AoC, state Constitutions, etc.). If indeed they do not have rights, then they are property. Since reason and sentience is for me, a pre-requisite to the self-evidence of Natural Rights, then it becomes quite silly to criminalize someone for harming their own property. Moreover, if we are to believe that animals do have the right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness then how do we hold them accountable? As is, liberty is borne from negative rights. Where you have the liberty to do as you please as long as you do not infringe on anothers liberty. Once this occurs both parties must have the sentience to acknowledge and to formulate just laws to recompense for this violation.

It is blindingly clear that animals show no ability to either acknowledge through reason or any semblance of sentience these truths. In that vein, the SCOTUS should have struck down all Federal Laws on the books criminalizing the use of the persons property (animal).

The next question begs, that if you support the notion that animals have rights, then you must criminalize a host of areas. Any murder of an animal would be punishable the same as a murder of a human being since we share the same rights. I mean, are people ready to go down that road? That also means you cannot own pets, since slavery violates the rights of the animal. So how do we bring animals to justice? Yeah...

Now, I do not support the disgusting acts perpetuated upon defenseless animals. I also however, do not support criminalization.

On April 21 2010 02:12 KwarK wrote:

I think everyone realises that living animals are alive. As for caring, why should we care that they're alive. So are trees, I don't lose sleep over it.

On April 21 2010 02:18 Undisputed- wrote:
Also its worth mentioning, where do you draw the line of censorship? Passing laws like this opens a can of worms when it comes to free speech. You can't possibly censor everything that might be offensive.

On April 21 2010 02:23 Slow Motion wrote:

Well the Government isn't arguing that this law should be in a category that falls outside of First Amendment protection because it's offensive. Their argument is that this is the best/only way to stop the underlying illegal conduct (torturing of animals and whatnot). The problem is that the statute actually reaches further than just that goal.

The Government then argues that they''ll exercise restraint and discretion in applying the law (even if it's unconstitutional on its face, they'll make sure to apply the law in constitutional ways only). But the majority correctly notes that if a law is too broad as to be unconstitutional, the government can't save it by saying we should just trust them to not apply that law in an unconstitutional way.

On April 21 2010 02:18 Romantic wrote:

The usual measure is the amount of suffering or happiness we perceive them to have. That moral compass is almost natural in humans, babies dying outrages us because of the innocence and lost potential for happiness, old people? Who cares. We can easily crush bugs because we do not think of them as sharing in the same kind of suffering other creatures, say, mammals, would. Cats and dogs are social and emotional creatures (and we make it more so by naming them and giving them human traits) so it is easy to feel outraged at abuse directed towards them. It is more a choice of how much suffering and theft of live\joy\happiness that we can accept based on the benefits of inflicting the abuse.