Fuck The Superme Court

  Quote

The Supreme Court struck down on free-speech grounds Tuesday a federal law that makes it a crime to sell videos or photos of animals being illegally killed or tortured

Supreme Court Strikes Down Animal Cruelty Law

Are you fucking kidding me ???? this makes me so fucking mad , i guess is okay to sell and distribute snuff films also? eh , supreme court ? is it????

FUCK YOU SUPREME COURT.

yeah but you can own a gun so you can go out and illegally torture/kill animals yourself, innit

America

victory for free speech. it's all or nothing. once you start saying "this is bad, but this is ok", you're fucked. this is a good decision.

as things to be outraged by go, this is lukewarm at best.

  On 4/20/2010 at 7:35 PM, chaosmachine said:

victory for free speech. it's all or nothing. once you start saying "this is bad, but this is ok", you're fucked. this is a good decision.

Fuck free speech , we are talking about FUCKING ANIMAL TORTURE HERE!!!! is a fucking SNUFF FILM!!!!

  On 4/20/2010 at 7:37 PM, Boxing Day said:

  On 4/20/2010 at 7:35 PM, chaosmachine said:

victory for free speech. it's all or nothing. once you start saying "this is bad, but this is ok", you're fucked. this is a good decision.

 

Fuck free speech , we are talking about FUCKING ANIMAL TORTURE HERE!!!! is a fucking SNUFF FILM!!!!

don't buy it then. there are laws against animal torture, we don't need laws restricting what you can and can't sell on a video tape.

Holy fucking Christ , your comments are disturbing.

I guess child porn and snuff films are okay too?

It is animal torture, but there is already a law making animal torture a crime. The reasons here was two fold. One, if the underlying activity is illegal then you don't need to infringe upon 1st amendment to make it more illegal. Two, it was a rather broad and the government essentially argued "trust us" as to the question of it being used to criminalize legitimate things like hunting programs.

It is interesting though that child pornography isn't protected by free speech so I'm not sure how they distinguished a difference beyond that this particular case was rather broad, and the government wanted to be entrusted to only use it appropriately.

  On 4/20/2010 at 7:39 PM, Boxing Day said:

Holy fucking Christ , your comments are disturbing.

 

I guess child porn and snuff films are okay too?

i think chaosmachine might been smking some pot cause he's ussually pretty serious

  On 4/20/2010 at 7:39 PM, Boxing Day said:

Holy fucking Christ , your comments are disturbing.

 

I guess child porn and snuff films are okay too?

Think of the children! That's what you call a Thought-terminating cliché.

Perhaps we should also make it illegal to have videos of dangerous driving, police brutality, or war crimes. What about video of people smoking drugs? People making drugs? Footage of the JFK assassination?

  On 4/20/2010 at 7:39 PM, Boxing Day said:

Holy fucking Christ , your comments are disturbing.

 

I guess child porn and snuff films are okay too?

You might also note that Robert's hinted that a statute narrowly tailored against production and sale of 'crush videos' might pass constitutional scrutiny, presumably in the same manner that the production and sale of child porn videos passes constitutional scrutiny.

  On 4/20/2010 at 7:46 PM, chaosmachine said:

  On 4/20/2010 at 7:39 PM, Boxing Day said:

Holy fucking Christ , your comments are disturbing.

 

I guess child porn and snuff films are okay too?

 

Think of the children! That's what you call a Thought-terminating cliché.

 

Perhaps we should also make it illegal to have videos of dangerous driving, police brutality, or war crimes. What about video of people smoking drugs? People making drugs? Footage of the JFK assassination?

LOL , i don't care about the children. But seriously , Animal Torture video is bad.

  On 4/20/2010 at 7:46 PM, chaosmachine said:

Perhaps we should also make it illegal to have videos of dangerous driving, police brutality, or war crimes. What about video of people smoking drugs? People making drugs? Footage of the JFK assassination?

Have is very different than sell. I don't think you should be able to sell those things either. 'Having' them is no issue.

  On 4/20/2010 at 7:53 PM, Boxing Day said:

LOL , i don't care about the children. But seriously , Animal Torture video is bad.

What do you think about animal rights groups using it on a daily basis, then?

  On 4/20/2010 at 7:55 PM, Earth said:

Have is very different than sell. I don't think you should be able to sell those things either. 'Having' them is no issue.

That's an interesting point of view. Why does free distribution suddenly make the contents of the video morally acceptable to share? What about trading videos? Or are you suggesting that if you have such videos, you shouldn't be allowed to show them to anyone?

  On 4/20/2010 at 7:58 PM, chaosmachine said:

  On 4/20/2010 at 7:53 PM, Boxing Day said:

LOL , i don't care about the children. But seriously , Animal Torture video is bad.

 

What do you think about animal rights groups using it on a daily basis, then?

 

  On 4/20/2010 at 7:55 PM, Earth said:

Have is very different than sell. I don't think you should be able to sell those things either. 'Having' them is no issue.

 

That's an interesting point of view. Why does free distribution suddenly make the contents of the video morally acceptable to share? What about trading videos? Or are you suggesting that if you have such videos, you shouldn't be allowed to show them to anyone?

it's like drugs, i can have them, but i cannot sell them...

I just realized the Supreme Court is protecting my signature.

It might be a good idea to allow the possession of animal torture videos, but ban the selling of them. Because, if you can make a profit off of them, that gives you an incentive to do it. So you'd be banning to the incentive, without banning the freedom of speech.

I dunno if this would be a good idea. But it's a defensible position.

  On 4/20/2010 at 8:24 PM, Root5 said:

It might be a good idea to allow the possession of animal torture videos, but ban the selling of them. Because, if you can make a profit off of them, that gives you an incentive to do it. So you'd be banning to the incentive, without banning the freedom of speech.

 

I dunno if this would be a good idea. But it's a defensible position.

I don't think it helps. I suspect most animal torture is not videotaped. Prohibiting the sale of videos won't stop it from happening, and it won't stop the videos that are made from being distributed. People who want animal torture videos will just set up torrent sites.

Also, replace "animal torture" with "gay sex" if you think I'm wrong.

im more worried about this lady Kagan being the new person on the court, she has pretty much no record and is a Bush era apologist. It's going to be shift the court to the right so effing hard.

Well. Assume for a moment that you're not okay with people torturing animals, but you are okay with people looking at videos of people torturing animals. If there is a market for the videos, it might encourage people to torture more animals. But if it is very hard to sell those videos, because if you do you go to jail, you'll be less inclined to make animal torture film director your career.

Of course, people will still do it. And distribute it (but you don't care about the distribution, only the actual torture). The point is not that this would eliminate the problem. But it might make it less frequent?

Who knows?

  On 4/20/2010 at 8:35 PM, Root5 said:

Well. Assume for a moment that you're not okay with people torturing animals, but you are okay with people looking at videos of people torturing animals. If there is a market for the videos, it might encourage people to torture more animals. But if it is very hard to sell those videos, because if you do you go to jail, you'll be less inclined to make animal torture film director your career.

 

Of course, people will still do it. And distribute it (but you don't care about the distribution, only the actual torture). The point is not that this would eliminate the problem. But it might make it less frequent?

 

Who knows?

Nope. Making it illegal just makes it more profitable. See: Prohibition & The War on Drugs.

CAPITALISM!!!!

  On 4/20/2010 at 8:38 PM, chaosmachine said:

  On 4/20/2010 at 8:35 PM, Root5 said:

Well. Assume for a moment that you're not okay with people torturing animals, but you are okay with people looking at videos of people torturing animals. If there is a market for the videos, it might encourage people to torture more animals. But if it is very hard to sell those videos, because if you do you go to jail, you'll be less inclined to make animal torture film director your career.

 

Of course, people will still do it. And distribute it (but you don't care about the distribution, only the actual torture). The point is not that this would eliminate the problem. But it might make it less frequent?

 

Who knows?

 

Nope. Making it illegal just makes it more profitable. See: Prohibition & The War on Drugs.

Just because it is more profitable, does that make it more frequent? Perhaps people make more money on drugs than they would if drugs were legal, but perhaps fewer people do drugs because they don't want to get caught.

At the end of the day, I think you're obviously right. I just brought it up because that would presumably be the kind of argument that backs up the banning of the selling of x but not the possession of x. You asked if there was any morally relevant difference.

Boxing day is a noob for not understanding the constitution.

  On 4/20/2010 at 8:47 PM, Root5 said:

Just because it is more profitable, does that make it more frequent? Perhaps people make more money on drugs than they would if drugs were legal, but perhaps fewer people do drugs because they don't want to get caught.

 

At the end of the day, I think you're obviously right. I just brought it up because that would presumably be the kind of argument that backs up the banning of the selling of x but not the possession of x. You asked if there was any morally relevant difference.

The ability to make fast money probably has more to do with people entering the drug-pushing business than anything else. Nobody spends their life selling crack to prostitutes for the fun of it. By making it illegal, you create a fat profit margin, and that attracts sellers and producers who otherwise wouldn't be interested. So, morally, I'd say you're worse off, because you're incentivizing the market.