US House reacts quickly to Supreme Court animal-cruelty-video ruling

A group of Representatives have introduced a bill to ban so-called “crush videos,” in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling that handed legal status to the sale of animal-cruelty videos.

But does it go far enough?

The Wall Street Journal is reporting this bill will ONLY target crush videos, which show women slowly crushing small animals to death with their feet or shoes.

From the Wall Street Journal story –

“” “”

The new ban would apply only to “animal crush videos,” which it defines as depicting real animals “being intentionally crushed, burned, drowned, or impaled” if those acts are illegal where the video is sold.

“” “”

Dog fighting, at minimum, needs to be included in this bill or a separate bill. The sooner, the better.

Advertisements

3 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by urbancritter on April 22, 2010 at 11:45 pm

    at least dog fighting and cock fighting too, where it’s illegal

    Reply

  2. Posted by D Gary Grady on April 23, 2010 at 2:20 am

    Unfortunately, passing a more comprehensive law would be a total waste of time, because the Supreme Court has already ruled 8 to 1 that a broad prohibition against depictions of animal cruelty violates the First Amendment. The very reason for making the bill very narrow in scope is that it’s the only way to make such a law enforceable in light of the Court’s ruling. And the only reason the narrower law might pass muster is the bizarre notion that sex is one of the few things horrible enough to justify criminalizing speech or the press.

    So what’s the alternative? Pass stronger laws against animal cruelty itself.

    Reply

  3. Posted by D Gary Grady on April 23, 2010 at 8:18 pm

    ANOTHER CONSEQUENCE OF THE RULING

    A man who shot video of himself repeatedly a deliberately running down deer in his specially reinforced pickup truck was facing federal charges under the animal cruelty video statute but it appears charges will be dropped. He’s likely to get away Scot-free, because while the videos show unambiguously illegal acts, it isn’t possible to say which state(s) he was in when he committed them.

    http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/laworder/story/9931FA24EB1EBCC48625770E000C166B?OpenDocument

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: