Occasional Supreme Court notes

[docorion]

Now and again, the Supreme Court gets it right, both in substance and in the details.

So here (PDF) is the court's opinion on the recently passed law banning "crush" films (basically, films depicting animal cruelty). The issue here is the statute at hand, not the issue of whether the depictions are a good thing or not; the statute was overbroad

Comments

[liamstliam]

I really don't understand this.

Dogfighting is illegal, but films of it are OK.

Killing animals can get you thrown in jail, but films of it are OK?

But then I don't understand the U.S. District Court case earlier in the week that says it's OK to flip off a police officer.

(Not recently passed. Clinton signed it)

PS: I *do* understand what you are saying how how a government mught choose to use laws.

[docorion]

Well, let us say (as in this case), that you have access to some film of animal fighting made in a place where animal fighting is/was legal (it was, IIRC, legal in Hawaii until something like the 70'). You wish to market this footage. Is this film "covered speech" (meaning "covered by the First Amendment")? The court says it is, and I agree. It's not speech I *like*, but the uttering of these films is not, and ought not to be, illegal

[mrf_arch]

I'd be more impressed with the court's free speech position if it wasn't accompanied by declaring corporations to have all the free speech rights of citizens, (Citizens United) and citizens not to have free speech rights in the matter of topics the court doesn't like, particularly drugs (Morse V. Fredrick)

I suppose the right decision for the wrong reasons is still the right decision, and there will be precious few of those in the next few years as it is so I should be happier.

Of course, people who mistreat animals for fun are still scum, but my understanding is that existing animal cruelty statutes already cover that.