What is wrong with the Supreme Court???
Message boards :
Politics :
What is wrong with the Supreme Court???
Message board moderation
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
Luke  Send message Joined: 31 Dec 06 Posts: 2546 Credit: 817,560 RAC: 0 
|
Supreme court rejects animal cruelty law, in favor of free speech. Free speech my ass. I agree with the idea of free speech, but at the expense of animals??? - Luke. ID: 990730 ·  |
 Lint trap Send message Joined: 30 May 03 Posts: 871 Credit: 28,092,319 RAC: 0 
|
They've lost their friggin' minds is all! Too bad we can't Vote them out this year, also! Martin ID: 990732 · |
Gary Charpentier     Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30653 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32
 |
Let's ban those National Geographic, Nova and Nature programs. They show far too much animal cruelty. I mean really showing an animal eating another alive! Can you imagine the horror?!! How about putting the people who stage an event away for staging it? Yes it is a harder job for the cops, but who said they job should be easy? Proud card carrying member of the ACLU. 
ID: 990747 · |
|
Lint trap Send message Joined: 30 May 03 Posts: 871 Credit: 28,092,319 RAC: 0
|
It's Cruelty induced by humans for "sport". What They decided goes too far. At least from what is being reported, the ruling goes too far, IMO. Martin edited. ID: 990758 · |
skildude  Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60 
|
I dont like the ruling but I understand the reasoning. The law has to broad coverage. viewing a slaughter house video would be covered under that law. Indeed the law was intended to prevent people from spreading snuff videos. However they basically tell Congress they need to be specific in their writing of a new law. this wasn't a clearly defined law and needed to go away. Now perhaps they can draft a law with the proper meaning  In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face. Diogenes Of Sinope ID: 990773 · |
Misfit  Send message Joined: 21 Jun 01 Posts: 21804 Credit: 2,815,091 RAC: 0
|
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., speaking for the court, said the First Amendment does not allow the government to criminalize whole categories of speech and expression that are deemed undesirable. Roberts also said the law was too broad and could allow prosecutions for selling photos of out-of-season hunting, for example. Because the Constitution sez so the Supreme Court made the correct decision. me@rescam.org ID: 990818 · |
|
skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60
|
Like I said they need to craft a law that specifies what acts are actually criminal In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face. Diogenes Of Sinope ID: 990873 · |
|
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30653 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32
|
Like actually setting up a dog fight. Isn't there a law on the books for that already? Isn't there a law on the books about being a spectator at a dog fight? Isn't there a law on the books (money laundering / RICO) about profiting on another criminal act?
ID: 990879 · |
|
skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60
|
yes but there wasn't anything that prevented idiots from stomping on hampsters in highheels for profit on the net. again specific rules for specifically offensive material In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face. Diogenes Of Sinope ID: 990880 · |
|
Misfit Send message Joined: 21 Jun 01 Posts: 21804 Credit: 2,815,091 RAC: 0
|
Like I said they need to craft a law that specifies what acts are actually criminal The legislature is more worried about appearances than they are substance. Laws are struck down by the court all the time because they are too vague. Yet they never learn. You just don't hear about it unless a special interest wants to pull on your heart strings. me@rescam.org ID: 990935 · |
rebest   Send message Joined: 16 Apr 00 Posts: 1296 Credit: 45,357,093 RAC: 0
|
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., speaking for the court, said the First Amendment does not allow the government to criminalize whole categories of speech and expression that are deemed undesirable. I find it both interesting and hilarious that the one Justice dissenting was Sam Alito. He has no problem selling elections out to corporations, but goes to the mat (alone) for furry creatures. Awww.. It also appears that Justice Sotomayor isn't as radical as she was made out to be.  Join the PACK! ID: 990941 · |
|
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30653 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32
|
yes but there wasn't anything that prevented idiots from stomping on hampsters in highheels for profit on the net. again specific rules for specifically offensive material If you mean to say that there isn't a law that makes stomping on hamsters illegal, talk to the state legislature and ask them why they thought that should be legal when they outlawed doing that to cats and dogs. If the stuff is coming from overseas, the US is finding it rather tough to stop gambling on the net, never mind something like a letter from the former finance minister of upper north west inner south lower ....
ID: 991000 · |
|
skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60
|
the problem the Congress was addressing what the distribution of "snuff" videos on the internet. this become and interstate problem which requires the FBI and federal laws In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face. Diogenes Of Sinope ID: 991080 · |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.