Supreme Court strikes down law against animal cruelty videos

[teko]

News Alert: Supreme Court strikes down law against animal cruelty videos
10:14 AM EDT Tuesday, April 20, 2010
--------------------

Voting 8-1, justices throw out conviction of Va. man under federal law aimed at banning videos that show graphic violence against animals, saying it violates the right to free speech.

For more information, visit washingtonpost.com:
http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/6041ZA/P9JJM/XO97UU/LHQ3NQ/8DVGL/36/t

[StormyRenee]

I hope you are right ....

[jdwithhcv]

I believe this law can be made to properly protect, but not as presently written.  Justice Roberts' remarks about a more limited statute are encouraging.  I expect the legislature will now draft a statute that is sufficient to provide the desired protection but narrow enough to survive strict scrutiny.

[StormyRenee]

It is sad that the laws made to protect us do not always protect  those who need it most...

[jdwithhcv]

Laws that restrict speech, particularly those that involve prior restraints on speech (and yes, actions can be construed as speech in certain circumstances) are subject to strict scrutiny, which is to say that they must be necessary to achieve a compelling government purpose.  Restrictions on speech must be narrowly tailored, so that the least possible amount of speech is restricted.

[teko]

Thanks mikesimon, hearing  that does make me feel some better!

[mikesimon]

The ruling was that the statute was overly broad.

[But Roberts said the federal law was so broadly written that it could include all depictions of killing animals, even hunting videos. He said the court was not passing judgment about whether "a statute limited to crush videos or other depictions of extreme animal cruelty would be constitutional."]

Mike

[ILADVOCATE]

Yes the issue as defined in that case is complex as regards the first amendment but I would believe that since the videos are films of animal cruelty that would be action rather than speech which doesn't have the same protection under the law. I did note they stated that the original law could potentially be revised so that it would meet constitutional standards which makes sense to me.