Am I missing somthing?........

I saw this in the news today..and im cofused as "Watch your language", am I missing somthing or did they seriously just lift a ban on filming dog fights and animal cruelty?!?! How the !@#$ is that free speech????

Quote :

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court struck down a federal law Tuesday aimed at banning videos that show graphic violence against animals, saying it violates the right to free speech.

The justices, voting 8-1, threw out the criminal conviction of Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Va., who was sentenced to three years in prison for videos he made about pit bull fights.

The law was enacted in 1999 to limit Internet sales of so-called crush videos, which appeal to a certain sexual fetish by showing women crushing to death small animals with their bare feet or high-heeled shoes.

The videos virtually disappeared once the measure became law, the government argued.

But Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said the law goes too far, suggesting that a measure limited to crush videos might be valid.

In dissent, Justice Samuel Alito said the harm animals suffer in dogfights is enough to sustain the law.

What the...
You mean the supreme court actually went out of their way to drop the ban?

I'm thinking we've got some weirdos in the court wanting their "crush videos" back.

Yeah im not getting it either..8-1 in favor of dropping the ban on that "Watch your language"?

Thats why I was thinking i was missing somthing...becouse I just can't see anyone voting to allow it.

Next thing you know, the law on child porn will be repealed.

I say again, sometimes government amazes me.

In the article it said it was brought to the supreme courts attention because a guy was in jail for making a video about animal cruelty in dog fights and he was arrested for making an educational vid.

The pit bulls ids weren;t actual fight, it was a documentary...
'

The crush videos are F&*king wrong.....who gets happy to stuff like that?

I could see making exceptions for expository documentaries, but to repeal it altogether? And I think this proves that rule 34 CAN go too far.

I understand where they are coming from actual. Saying that you can't film something is a restriction of our freedom of speech. So filming animal cruelty is our within our right to make a statement.

But it is STILL illegal to commit acts of animal cruelty. So actually being present during the acts, and helping them with said acts is still illegal.

Im going to disagree...just like watching child porn is illigal so should watching that stuff. By that logic the one who watchess the stuff should be innocent...and I strongly disagree. The people who watch it create a demand...and a demand leads to more being produced.

Hunting is making a statement....torturing animals for sexual pleasure or monatary profit is not.

Think of it this way.

The scene where lassie dies. . . how long before that is considered Animal cruelty, and the movie is banned?

Then Dr. Dolittle is banned because the monkey got into the beer, that follows another movie until we suddenly have a restriction on movies that we are no longer allowed to watch. . . which political system does that remind me of? couldn't be communism right?

Why do people always go with the slippery slope thing?..and no thats not communism...that would be totalitarian rule. Besides...it's easy to write into the law that the recording has to convay malicsious intent...crunching a small animal with your heel..yes, making dogs fight? yes. Lassie?....not so much.

But to each thier own..I realy don't think it should have been repealed...edited perhaps but not completly removed.