Supreme Court voids ban on cruel videos

This is an article I found on Dogtime.com.  When I read this article I was sick.  How can it be okay to make and sell dog fighting videos, yet dog fighting itself is illegal?  If that holds water, then how can all the perverts get arrested for viewing kiddie porn videos on their own computers?  Where exactly is the difference?  In both cases, the innocent are damaged and others are profiting from said damage.  Please click the link to go read the comments at the original site.  This just makes no sense at all.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Dogtime editor rules on the Court's latest decision.

We live in a country in which our basic liberty is protected by law. And thanks to today's Supreme Court ruling, we can add one more freedom to the list that includes speech, religion, and assembly: We can legally profit from videos depicting people in spiked heels stomping on live animals until their bodies are pulverized. Crushed to death.
Thank you, Supreme Court justices (save Justice Alito), for upholding my right to sell footage showing the explicit maiming, torture, and killing of companion animals. I can now legally make money on dog fighting - or any other form of cruelty I happen to fancy.
"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.
According to cnn.com , "Roberts concluded Congress had not sufficiently shown 'depictions' of dog fighting enough to justify a special category of exclusion from free speech protection."
Just how many dogs should have to endure prolonged and intentional agony before the restrictions outweigh the costs? When does the scale tip away from depraved sadists in favor of a gentle and innocent animal?
In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled that the trafficking of child pornography does not fall under the protection of free speech. So the precedent is there. But the willingness of the Court to protect our dogs and cats is second to our right to produce images of bullfighting and deer hunting.
Roberts did concede one point. According to CNN, he "suggested a law specifically banning crush videos might be valid, since it was narrowly tailored to a specific type of commercial enterprise."
Might be valid? Your compassion is so overwhelming, Chief Justice Roberts, that I think I must now excuse myself to go be sick.
I love my American Pit Bull Terrier, but today, I certainly don't love being an American.
- Leslie Smith

The editor with her dog.

Here is the link to the original article and all the comments.  Please visit the site.

Related articles by Zemanta

• US court ends animal cruelty law (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Banning Depictions of Extreme Animal Cruelty (themoderatevoice.com)
• Court voids law aimed at animal cruelty videos (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Supreme Court Voids Ban on Dogfighting Videos (abcnews.go.com)
• High court: Animal-cruelty videos OK (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Justices reject ban on animal cruelty videos (msnbc.msn.com)