America proves itself to belong to the 3rd World. Again.

Tagaziel

Tagaziel

Party Escort Bot
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
4,085
Reaction score
24
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/20/dog.fight.videos/index.html

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has struck down a federal law designed to stop the sale and marketing of videos showing dogfights and other acts of animal cruelty, saying it is an unconstitutional violation of free speech.

The 8-1 decision was a defeat for animal rights groups and congressional sponsors of the unusual legislation.

The specific case before the court dealt with tapes showing pit bulldogs attacking other animals and one another in staged confrontations.

The justices Tuesday concluded the scope and intent of the decade-old statute was overly broad.

"The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh its costs," said Chief Justice John Roberts. He concluded Congress had not sufficiently shown "depictions" of dogfighting were enough to justify a special category of exclusion from free speech protection.
Click to expand...

I'm speechless.
 
Forcing two dogs to fight each other isn't conveying any kind of political message.
 
6Three said:
Free speech = 3rd world?
Click to expand...

dogfight2.jpg


Yeah, that's free speech right there.
 
Come back when they say its legal host and participate in dogfights. As far as I am aware, that is still illegal. Until then, I'm not about to support the banning of any media, only the actions recorded by it.
 
See, this is the problem. The activities are illegal, but profiting from them by selling recordings is perfectly legal.

This is FUBAR. Absolutely FUBAR.
 
Its not illegal to be an immoral capitalist.
 
Krynn72 said:
Come back when they say its legal host and participate in dogfights. As far as I am aware, that is still illegal. Until then, I'm not about to support the banning of any media, only the actions recorded by it.
Click to expand...
That's why it's OK to posess child porn, right?

Right?

Where's Stern? Someone?
 
I had a feeling someone would bring that up. This forum loves to talk about child porn all of the sudden.
 
Ever see that porn where that dude bangs that chick? Good porn.
 
Krynn72 said:
I had a feeling someone would bring that up. This forum loves to talk about child porn all of the sudden.
Click to expand...
It's in recent memory, and it's a corollary to this. So yes, I'm going to bring it up.
 
Funnily enough, child porn is actually illegal in the US and is the only instance in which the Supreme Court decided that exploiting the weakest creatures in the world is more harmful than limiting free speech.

However, when beings that are just as helpless, if not more, are exploited, they happily permit that, simply because the beings in question don't belong to the homo sapiens species.
 
I think the hypocrisy has more to do with social norms, status quo, voter base, &c, than that, but OK.
 
apparantly this bill was too far reaching. for example it would have made fishing videos illegal as well. they'll probably come back with an amended bill that's less far reaching in scope


really, this outrage is premature I think
 
"The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh its costs,"
Click to expand...
What "American people" would that be? How can what was decided by a few upper-class twits in 1791 possibly be claimed to reflect the feelings of the American people of 2010?
 
the 1st amendment is the bill of rights; free speech
 
CptStern said:
apparantly this bill was too far reaching. for example it would have made fishing videos illegal as well. they'll probably come back with an amended bill that's less far reaching in scope


really, this outrage is premature I think
Click to expand...

29fzpk.jpg
 
Sorry, dogfighting videos and images =/= cp. The species aren't equal. I believe our laws and ethical policies tend to put ourselves on a higher priority over animals, and in comparison to exploiting dogs, exploiting children will always carry stiffer, harder consequences.
You didn't see what I did there
 
you said:

What "American people" would that be? How can what was decided by a few upper-class twits in 1791 possibly be claimed to reflect the feelings of the American people of 2010?
Click to expand...

the issue is one of free speech, it's pretty cut and dry because it's exactly what the right to free speech is supposed to cover. it doesnt need a modern interpretation because of how wide reaching it is; fishing, hunting, wildlife videos etc
 
Yes, we do need a modern interpretation of it. The American concept of freedom of speech is based on the reality of 1776, not 2010.
 
CptStern said:
you said:



the issue is one of free speech, it's pretty cut and dry because it's exactly what the right to free speech is supposed to cover. it doesnt need a modern interpretation because of how wide reaching it is; fishing, hunting, wildlife videos etc
Click to expand...
They said "The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people", which I thought was stupid, as it was written by a couple of rich slave owners in 1789, and has jack shit to do with what the American people think or feel today.
 
That may be so, but the wording is ****ing stupid. Everyone seems to speak for what the "people" wants, without actually having a clue what that is. Why not just say "The First Amendment itself reflects a judgement that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh its costs", and leave it like that? What's the point of bringing out "the American people", when it's clearly not relevant or correct. ****ing populists.
 
Tagaziel said:
Yes, we do need a modern interpretation of it. The American concept of freedom of speech is based on the reality of 1776, not 2010.
Click to expand...

The principle is the same. You can say what you please without fear of being arrested and prosecuted. That's why people can say things like "Barack Obama is satan" and not have to worry about the CIA coming over and making them disappear. The only problem is, no one from the time of the drafting of the bill of rights could have forseen information being shared in the way it is currently. It makes the objectionable much more difficult to ignore. Yet it is true that no one should be persecuted for speaking their mind no matter how many people think they're wrong.

If you say "hey you can't show dogs fighting" then you approach the realm of what is and isn't acceptable ethically, and it isn't the surpreme court's job to decide. Their job is only to decide whether a law fits within the boundaries of the constitution or not... and in this case, it did not.
 
StarBob said:
The principle is the same. You can say what you please without fear of being arrested and prosecuted. That's why people can say things like "Barack Obama is satan" and not have to worry about the CIA coming over and making them disappear. The only problem is, no one from the time of the drafting of the bill of rights could have forseen information being shared in the way it is currently. It makes the objectionable much more difficult to ignore. Yet it is true that no one should be persecuted for speaking their mind no matter how many people think they're wrong.
Click to expand...

You're confusing "free speech" with "irresponsible speech". People are prosecuted for false bomb alarms, why shouldn't they be prosecuted for preaching hate, which is just as bad, if not worse?

This the key problem. "Freedom of speech" shouldn't mean "You're free to say whatever you want". If someone is publicly stating that Black/Jew/Indian/White/Yellow/Islam/Catholic/Homo/etc. people are an inferior type of man (optionally adding that they should be shot and burned), then he should be prosecuted to hell and back, rather than protected by the law.

If you say "hey you can't show dogs fighting" then you approach the realm of what is and isn't acceptable ethically, and it isn't the surpreme court's job to decide. Their job is only to decide whether a law fits within the boundaries of the constitution or not... and in this case, it did not.
Click to expand...

Law is the absolute minimum of morality. Apparently, it is moral to profit from the exploitation of those weaker than you in America.

Glad it was made official.
 
I'm very uninformed on animal rights issues (or whatever they're called), but I don't see how this is half as horrendous as the crap we do to our food, and given that the actual actions are illegal, I'm struggling to care very much.
 
Tagaziel said:
"Freedom of speech" shouldn't mean "You're free to say whatever you want". If someone is publicly stating that Black/Jew/Indian/White/Yellow/Islam/Catholic/Homo/etc. people are an inferior type of man (optionally adding that they should be shot and burned), then he should be prosecuted to hell and back
Click to expand...
21ep8w.jpg
 
Tagaziel said:
This the key problem. "Freedom of speech" shouldn't mean "You're free to say whatever you want". If someone is publicly stating that Black/Jew/Indian/White/Yellow/Islam/Catholic/Homo/etc. people are an inferior type of man (optionally adding that they should be shot and burned), then he should be prosecuted to hell and back, rather than protected by the law.
Click to expand...

This. This is the worst post.

Freedom of speech should very well mean "You're free to say whatever you want".

"Heh, you can say whatever you want but only if it doesn't offend me"
 
Tagaziel said:
This the key problem. "Freedom of speech" shouldn't mean "You're free to say whatever you want". If someone is publicly stating that Black/Jew/Indian/White/Yellow/Islam/Catholic/Homo/etc. people are an inferior type of man (optionally adding that they should be shot and burned), then he should be prosecuted to hell and back, rather than protected by the law.
Click to expand...

fdsgh.jpg


Come now. Don't say stupid things.
 
Tagaziel said:
This the key problem. "Freedom of speech" shouldn't mean "You're free to say whatever you want". If someone is publicly stating that Black/Jew/Indian/White/Yellow/Islam/Catholic/Homo/etc. people are an inferior type of man (optionally adding that they should be shot and burned), then he should be prosecuted to hell and back, rather than protected by the law.
Click to expand...

calmdowna.jpg


I spilled my drink.
 
Adrik_Senturu said:
This. This is the worst post.

Freedom of speech should very well mean "You're free to say whatever you want".

"Heh, you can say whatever you want but only if it doesn't offend me"
Click to expand...

If this person says something offensive directly to another, then its more of an offense, right? I believe "freedom of speech" relates to the freedom of speaking out on something, or someone. Saying anything offensive to someone else directly and arguing that you have "freedom of speech" is selfish.
 
Yes, it's selfish and often stupid. But we have the right to be selfish and often stupid.
 
I think the OP is right. **** freedom of speech. It's an overrated concept of a so-called 'liberty' which is designed to do nothing but empower the agents of chaos and those that disseminate dissent, and protect the criminal elements of the political process.
 
**** off with these stupid images when we're having a serious discussion. Go jack off to animie or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

xcellerate
The longest....
Replies
8
Views
869
hungryduck
hungryduck
Back
Top