“I'm not nearly deluded enough to even ask that this not turn into another left-right circle jerk... but it was not my intent.

I was wondering what people's thoughts are about the free speech issue being reviewed by the courts right now regarding videos of dogfighting and, for lack of a better term, sexual critter-stomping. It does create a bit of a dilema because, although banning them would be an exercise in human decency and common sense, it would appear to violate free speech rights.

Thoughts? Let's try, at least for four or five posts, to be grownups here and not blame one political party or the other. Please?

Myself... I can't see it being smart to make the videos illegal because it would open the door for all sorts of other bullschit. At the same time, the people making the videos should be hunted down, gutted, and left out to the vultures. that's my opinion, at least”

“Dog-fighting and killing animals for malicious intent is illegal in most states, yes?

Then it would seem that posting a video would be an accessory-type charge?”

“that would make sense... similar to kiddie porn. The fine line here is, what constitutes animal cruelty? Clearly, stomping a puppy to death to get your rocks off would constitute it, but when you talk about, say, hunting or fishing shows, the line gets kind of fuzzy...”

“First of all I want point out that Free Speech was paid for. It is not free, and it is a right to those who obey those laws that support that right.

So if what you are speaking about is breaking the law or causing a law to be broken, then you have a problem.”

“What about using live puppies to troll for sharks? Or swatting mosquitoes? Animal cruelty is what a society deems it to be whether or not that deeming makes any logical sense.”

“yeah, so therein lies the problem. From a moral standpoint, of course I think these movies should be banned. But what if, a few years down the line, someone decides that hunting videos portray similar cruelty to animals and should also be illegal (a debatable point for sure... it's acceptable to shoot a deer to death but not a dog). From there, it's a pretty easy step to say "if the hunting videos portray animal cruelty, then hunting IS animal cruelty and should be banned."”

“why is that a problem? There is no real morality. All there is is what any current society decides it is. 100 years ago women at the beach wore more clothes than the typical office worker does today. Slavery was an accepted practice for thousands of years, today in most of the world its a heinous act. Morality evolves with the people.”

“...it's acceptable to shoot a deer to death but not a dog...

Not even remotely close to the same thing. You're blurring a lot of lines there. Are you an accessory to a crime everytime you buy beef, chicken or pork?



Free speech is free speech. You have to accept all of it or none of it. (although in the case of the latter then it's not free anymore) TT demonstrates everyday that some people are only fine with the free speech they agree with, but who gets to decide what's the right speech and what isn't?

To me, rosey made the most sense: photographing or recording an illegal activity (for fun and profit) makes you susceptible to the same laws as the perpetrator.”

“In my opinion, the current federal laws are overbroad and unconstitutional as a violation of free speech because they make criminal videos of legal activity in other countries. I am not in favor of government regulation that could be used to censor news or commercial outlets that show things like bull fighting in Spain or dog fighting in Japan.”

“Exactly. Its illegal to do those act in this country, but its not illegal to watch them. Should I be arrested for watching someone smoke pot? Or just the pot smoker?

BTW, NC, the only reason "...it's acceptable to shoot a deer to death but not a dog..." isn't "remotely the same thing" is that our society looks differently upon dogs than it does deer. People shoot feral dogs all the time without a public uproar. Its just when you do it to little Susy Sunshine's sweet little pet that people look at you askance.”

“Even though I'm a total hunting geek, those deer hunting "kill shots" kind of bother me. But that's a legal activity. Making money off a videa of an illegal activity seems wrong to me. If it's used to "bust" someone that's one thing, but not to make money off of...”

“I get that hyway, and I didn't mean to imply that he was comparing legal to illegal activities, but I didn't think he was saying what you are saying---maybe it was in his wording. I was trying to say that the Vick-like shooting of a (domestic) dog to death is not the same as you shooting a deer to feed the family.”

“Meat
It's whats for dinner”

“pepsi, EXCELLENT THREAD!

In my opinion (and I am shocked prosecutor didn't broach this) it has to do with MOTIVE and INTENT.

Hunting and Fishing are legal activities, granted as was stated they may be considered "Illegal" in the future. But then it would fall pretty much under the same line of "retroactive laws" (which are at least pretty much nada at THIS time).

For instance purchase, consumption, etc of Cuban products (cigars) by ANY American Citizen is a VIOLATION of Federal Law (even in a foriegn country. HOWEVER if I had access to Pre Ban Cigars, that is cigars that were produced BEFORE Jack the Zipper passed that law....THAT would be legal.

Now watching puppy stomping etc is a BIT different than "watching someone smoke pot". My comment to a prosecutor is "prove to me that I knew that person was REALLY smoking Pot."

Guess what, I can watch a movie of some girl being cut in half with a chain saw, and see her next week in another movie. That is special effects.

When we talk about some of these snuff type films I think we get to the question of "societal opinion". Who was the judge who said,"I can't define pornography but I know what it is when I see it."

Society sets boundries, people living in that society have to accept those boundries. I am very much a civil libertarian (meaning you take the shot you ACCEPT the responsiblity). But there are things that are disgusting on their own.”

“Obama backs U.N. limits on freedom of speech and freedom of expression

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/043ytrhc.asp?pg=1




The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends...........”

“HMMM that would NEVER stand in the Supreme Court...oh wait Ruth Bader Ginsburg#&%!$ did say she considers FORIEGN laws in her determinations.

WOW imagine in a few years, following a major disaster we get say a RELIGIOUS Zealot (say ultra right Christian) in the White House. Tilty wants to go ...um..."cooler packing" with his buds. So they dress up in their Japanese Schoolgirl outfits (not that he would) and go steaming or Flaming off.

They are stopped...its "free expression" but they are informed that the NEW law prohibits it.

He calls the local paper to complain and is told..."Nah new law controls what we can report."”

“"Now watching puppy stomping etc is a BIT different than "watching someone smoke pot". My comment to a prosecutor is "prove to me that I knew that person was REALLY smoking Pot."”
theXL400
9:30:10 AM
10/07/09

The only way it is different is your opinion, my opinion, his opinion, there opinion, whoever's opinion, but no matter the opinion, both are illegal. The proving the puppy killing isn't special effects is no different than proving the pot is really pot.”

“This is true hyway, but the "action" is illegal. There is no visible difference between "pot and tobbacco" but I would say its like showing the sexual assault on a child. (caveat if it WAS Polanski he gets a break ..right Crash?)

Its disgusting regardless.

hyway my question would be the Intent or purpose of watching it.
last edited: 10/07/09 7:17:50 AM”

“That's what I am saying XL, pot smoking and puppy stomping are both illegal activities. The watching of either is not illegal if both are not the actual act, but rather a staging of that action (make believe). On the other hand if watching the real act of smoking pot isn't illegal then why would the act of watching real puppy stomping be illegal if both had the same intent - entertainment, educational, whatever?”

“One has a victim( even if a dog)- where is the victim (other than health implications) with the joint?”

“that poor poor joint being burned alive for our entertainment...”

“as for the difference between shooting a dog and a deer, I should've been a little more specific. Of course, what Vick did is completely different than popping a deer with a rifle. What I was really thinking of was the guy (a fireman, I think) who was charged for animal cuelty for shooting his dog(s). I would assume that he put them down quickly... but THAT is still considered animal cruelty. As far as killing a deer to feed your family, that's certainly a different story. But if you're successful enough to have a television show about you killing deer, something tells me you don't have a starving wife at home praying that you bring home venison...

Are you an accessory to a crime everytime you buy beef, chicken or pork?

An interesting point. I love me a cheeseburger or a chicken burrito, but at the same time, one couldn't do to a dog what is done to those cows, pigs, and chickens. There's no scientific reason why it's cruelty to yank a dog's head off but not a chicken's. Why you can shoot a cow in the head with a bolt gun, but not a cat. It's just a matter of, for lack of a better term, taste. Then again, there isn't much of a market for sexual slaughterhouse videos. Or is there? Please tell me there isn't...”

“Why you can shoot a cow in the head with a bolt gun, but not a cat.


What the hell does this mean (LOL)? REALLY you can't...but can you bury a cat up to its neck in the yard and run it over with the lawn mower?”

“Don't do it, X.”

“but you can't with a cat... you'd be charged with animal cruelty.”

“Oh yeah...the old "cats are animals" thing...yeah I saw that one coming (LOL)”

“My friend that shot himself 2 weeks ago did not take and shoot his best friend, his dog. His last dog, 10 years back, he shot for attacking his dad. Would he have shot this dog had he been with? He didn't want to or he would have taken him? I'll never know, but shooting ones self is better than shooting some ones elses self.”

“First of all, there is some precedent for making watching some video's illegal.

I.E. child porn

Secondly, the most interesting thing about this case is that Scalia will in all liklihood write the opinion.

The most Conservative member of the court may well write what could be termed the most liberal opinion to be rendered in recent years if he grants Constitutional Protection.”

“I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that the law is sort of arbitrary over what you can and can't do to certain animals. I think if I had to kill a cow to eat it, I might be forced to give up beef (but I fukking HATE salads). The point is, because the line is arbitrary and fuzzy at best, making animal stomping or dogfighting videos illegal (though it would be the right thing to do from a moral standpoint) might open the door for some a-hole politician to then make hunting or fishing videos illegal (after all, what's the real difference between videos of a dog dying and those of a deer?), which is getting dangerously close to then going the next step and making hunting illegal...”

“The difference is with Deer, Cows etc, they are difficult to domesticate. Okay its not the same cuddling up with Rover on Sunday to watch tv as it would be to drag BESSIE into the house.”

“plenty of people have pet pigs. Apparently they're real smart animals and make great pets.”

“Okay its not the same cuddling up with Rover on Sunday to watch tv as it would be to drag BESSIE into the house.”
theXL400
11:26:18 AM
10/07/09

Its much easier to shag 'em in the back yard, huh?”

““plenty of people have pet pigs.

You mean like Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beckkk?”

“I'm not even saying this is about individual belief of what's right or wrong - this is about how a law banning puppy-stomping videos can lead to some politician a-hole potentially using it as a wedge to attack more "acceptable" practices such as hunting. I don't want to debate which animal is easier to cuddle with because it's completely moot - the issue is that the line IS fuzzy (regardless of what you individually believe) and politicians make careers out of exploiting fuzzy lines

Do you have faith in politicians not taking what would just about universally be considered a good gesture, and perverting it for their own agendas? I sure as hell don't”

“If it'll get them
on the Lobbymobile they will.
last edited: 10/07/09 12:14:35 PM”

“It seems a lot of politicians exploit fuzzy things...............and some with the fuzz removed, I reckon.

That is as old as politics.”

“laws are not precise. They are tools of society to represent its morals. If the society is schizophrenic in its morals then so will the law. This is why its potentially possible for a 13 yo girl to get an abortion without parental consent, but her 20 year old boyfriend can't buy a beer.”

“well put”

“Sockpuppet.”

“I reckon that 13 year old girl had sex without parental consent either.”

“True. But was it with a doctor? Either was, that doesn't change the fact that our country has schizophrenic morals which leads to schizophrenic laws.”

“Current moral values of our society probably should be the deciding factor in this matter. Good argument, Hyway.”

“Excellent argument Hyway. The entire "alcohol thing" was a frightening example of how certain Religious Nuts can actually effect our lives.

Hey I think if an 18 year old shows the responsibility to serve our country he should be allowed a cold one.”

“Really, the problem isn't with drinking anyway. It's with driving. Just raise the driving age to 21 and lower the drinking age to 18. Simple.”

“Funny thing is, you can serve and sell alcohol starting at age 18, but can't buy it until 21.

If a 20 year old uses a fake id to buy beer at a store and later gets in a car wreck while under the influence, the 18 year old clerk that sold the beer is held just as responsible. Tell me that isn't f**ked up.”

“Yessuh. As alluded to by Hyway, the laws in this country define schitzophrenia.”

“All legislation has to pass through the extreme right-left filter, what can be more schizo' than that?”

“Mo' schizo' than that?

I'll get back to ya....”

“

Mistrial declared in case of North Bergen blogger accused of threatening judges

NEW YORK -- A judge declared a mistrial today in the case against a New Jersey blogger accused of making death threats against three federal judges in Chicago because they wrote a ruling supporting gun control.

The mistrial came after the jury sent two notes -- one during its first day of deliberation on Friday and another today -- saying it was hopelessly deadlocked over charges Hal Turner threatened to kill or assault a federal judge. A retrial was scheduled for March 1 in Brooklyn, where the case was moved based on a change-of-venue request.

Prosecutors had argued that Turner knew his Internet tirade, which insisted the judges "must die," could provoke violence by members of his radical audience. The defense likened Turner to a "shock jock" and argued he was expressing an opinion protected by the First Amendment.

The only juror to speak to reporters afterward, truck driver Richard Gardiner, said the jury voted 9 to 3 in favor of acquittal, with the majority seeing the government's case as weak. He said he held out for a conviction because he "did think it was a threat."

Turner, 47, of North Bergen, N.J., left the courthouse without commenting.

The case arose earlier this year after the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- Richard Posner, Frank Easterbrook and William Bauer -- upheld a ruling that dismissed lawsuits challenging handgun bans in Chicago and in suburban Oak Park, Ill.

Turner blasted the decision with a lengthy, inflammatory blog post. Authorities say he went too far by writing: "Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges must die. Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty."

He later posted the judges' photographs, telephone numbers and work addresses, along with maps of a federal building that pointed out truck bomb barriers, authorities said. He also referenced the 2005 slaying of the mother and husband of another federal judge in Chicago, they said.

"Apparently, the 7th U.S. Circuit didn't get the hint after those killings," authorities say he wrote. "It appears another lesson is needed."”

“Um do the Liberal Crack Heads in Florida even UNDERSTAND the term Free Speech?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/1209/Grayson_wants_to_imprison_critic.html?showall

File this story under the pot calling the kettle black.

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), prone for throwing his own political bombs at Republicans, has threatened a local critic with five years in jail for creating the website �mycongressmanisnuts.com,�

The Orlando Sentinel reports that Grayson wrote a letter this week to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding that the federal government imprison Republican activist Angie Langley for five years because of her website criticizing him.

The website, designed to raise money against Grayson, catalogues videos and news clippings that portray the provocative congressman in an unfavorable light. It courts donors to donate money to help elect his Republican challenger next year � collecting $3,725 to date.”