Supreme Court rejects law banning animal-cruelty videos

[babsbunny]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/20/92513/supreme-court-rejects-law-banning.html

By Michael Doyle | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that even videos that depict wanton animal cruelty deserve free-speech protections under the First Amendment.

In an 8-1 decision that united the court's liberal and conservative wings, the justices struck down a law that was enacted in response to so-called "crush videos," supposedly designed to satisfy bizarre sexual cravings. The court said the law, however well-intentioned, went too far

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/20/92513/supreme-court-rejects-law-banning.html#ixzz0lg25rTRx

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

1. If child pornography is banned

under the concept that child protection laws must be broken to actually make the pornography...
How can videos of wanton animal cruelty not be banned?!?
Are laws not broken in the making of animal cruelty videos?

[anigbrowl]

2. Surprisingly enough, it is explained in the linked article.

I know, who'd have thought it?

[MJongo]

4. Strange, I don't see it explaining that comparison anywhere.

I'll have to agree with OneTenthofOnePercent. Very disturbing.

[anigbrowl]

6. Sigh...

The questions:

How can videos of wanton animal cruelty not be banned?!?
Are laws not broken in the making of animal cruelty videos?

are answered in the article in sufficient detail to make the premise about child porn irrelevant. But if you really want to know, that question of porn is further addressed in the court's opinion, which can be read here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf

...although I'm not optimistic that it actually will be.

[X_Digger]

3. dupe ^ 5th power.. n/t

[virgogal]

5. OMG. Anyone who watches one belongs in a psych ward.

[superduperfarleft]

7. How many threads are we going to have on this today? n/t

[babsbunny]

8. I am on here many times during the day and I have not seen it

DU dupe Police?