HOME



Digby's Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405



Facebook: Digby Parton

Twitter:
@digby56
@Gaius_Publius
@BloggersRUs (Tom Sullivan)
@spockosbrain



emails:
Digby:
thedigbyblog at gmail
Dennis:
satniteflix at gmail
Gaius:
publius.gaius at gmail
Tom:
tpostsully at gmail
Spocko:
Spockosbrain at gmail
tristero:
Richardein at me.com








Infomania

Salon
Buzzflash
Mother Jones
Raw Story
Huffington Post
Slate
Crooks and Liars
American Prospect
New Republic


Denofcinema.com: Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley review archive

January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018 June 2018 July 2018 August 2018 September 2018 October 2018 November 2018 December 2018 January 2019 February 2019 March 2019 April 2019 May 2019 June 2019 July 2019 August 2019 September 2019 October 2019


 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Hullabaloo


Tuesday, April 20, 2010

 
Cruel And Unusual

by digby

I am a big animal welfare advocate so I am disgusted that any human being would take pleasure in the suffering of animals or consider it entertainment. As a child I had nightmares for years after seeing a trained bear in a third world country. It's a horrible image that remains in my head today. But I also think the first amendment is pretty sacrosanct and that prohibiting things purely on the basis of the depiction of awful acts on film or in literature, rather than the awful acts themselves, is very, very problematic.

So, I can't reasonably argue with today's Supreme Court decision to overturn the ban on videos of animal cruelty on the merits. What I don't get is this logic from Justice Roberts:


He acknowledged that some sorts of speech — among them obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement and speech integral to criminal conduct — have historically been considered outside the protection of the First Amendment. But he rejected the government’s analogy to a more recent category of unprotected speech, that trafficking in child pornography, which the court in 1982 said deserved no First Amendment protection.

Child pornography, he said, is “a special case” because the market for it is “intrinsically related to the underlying abuse.”


But videos of animal cruelty aren't intrinsically related to the underlying abuse? That makes no sense. Roberts argues that the law prevents depictions of hunting:

Since all hunting is illegal in the District of Columbia, for instance, he said, the law makes the sale of magazines or videos showing hunting a crime here.

“The demand for hunting depictions exceeds the estimated demand for crush videos or animal fighting depictions by several orders or magnitude,” he wrote.


But the fact is that the laws against child pornography have far more often been used for absurd purposes than any arrests of someone for buying the latest copy of Hunting and Fishing Magazine. Just this week we had this:

Three Greensburg Salem students who allegedly sent nude or semi-nude photographs of themselves via their cell phones and three male students who received the photos are facing pornography charges.

Greensburg police have filed petitions with Westmoreland County juvenile authorities charging the three high school girls with manufacturing, disseminating or possessing child pornography. Three high school boys found with the photos on their cell phones are charged with possession of child pornography, police said Monday.

Police said more charges are possible because they believe the photos may have gone to others.

Media reports across the nation have documented the teen trend of sending nude or semi-nude photos from cell phone to cell phone, called "sexting" instead of "texting."

Westmoreland County District Attorney John Peck said minors can be charged with sending or possessing child pornography, despite their age.


I'm not arguing for child pornography. But this is clearly not what the law intended. Yet, Roberts seems to think this child pornography exception to the first amendment is reasonable while the one depicting animal cruelty would not be. It's intellectually inconsistent. Of course First Amendment jurisprudence always has been inconsistent so there's no surprise. But to mention two extremely similar cases in the same breath and come up a completely different rationale for each seems particularly capricious to me.

Of course, John Roberts also believes that non-human corporate entities have more free speech rights than teenagers who write the words "bong hits for jesus," so capricious
probably isn't the right word for it.

.