Well if Alito got his way, hunting videos and TV shows might have been in jeopardy and even hunting pictures in magazines and elsewhere. I think this was a victory for hunters rights. Of course, NO thanks to conservative justice Alito who apparently is NO friend of legal hunters depicting images of their hunts. I can somewhat understand why he voted the way he did using the other examples of animal cruelty that he did, but I think the line would have been way too close for comfort in regards to photos and videos of hunting images if the court ruled all such images illegal.
I don't have a problem with a law designed to outlaw films where women crush animals to fulfill some deviant fetish. But as I understand it, the law in question could easily be applied to hunting if a judge or politician deemed hunting as cruel, and you know those types are out there. So, a victory for hunters and the first amendment? YES.
Maybe someone will craft a narrow enough law to protect the puppies, kittens, and little ducklings out there being stomped to death so freaks can watch and **** ***.
Maybe someone will craft a narrow enough law to protect the puppies, kittens, and little ducklings out there being stomped to death so freaks can watch and **** ***.
Interesting point. So how many of you here would apply or approve of narrow enough laws to the 2nd amendment?? After all guns are used by freaks and deviants to kill humans, never mind the puppies and lil ducklings, yet many gun owners get appalled when some people say that guns shouldn't be so easy to get. What is constitutional to some can be offensive to others. No different in the 1st amendment OR the 2nd in my opinion and people shouldn't be surprised or outraged over it. The amendments aren't as cut and dry as most people here want to believe.
Hunting is not illegal, video it all you want. Dog fighting is. Im haveing a little problem grasping this.
You are correct. I'm not sure how they stretch it to cover hunting, since hunting is legal in all fifty states.
Quote:
“(c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— “(1) the term ‘depiction of animal cruelty’ means any visual or auditory depiction, including any photograph, motion-picture film, video recording, electronic image, or sound recording of conduct in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured,wounded, or killed, if such conduct is illegal under Federal law or the law of the State in which the creation, sale, or possession takes place,regardless of whether the maiming, mutilation, torture, wounding, or killing took place in the State;
I'm no lawyer but I'm having trouble understanding what the problem with the law was. How could that law have been a threat to hunters who videotape and sell their hunts?
__________________
"Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance." G.K. Chesterton
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wub
I'm no lawyer but I'm having trouble understanding what the problem with the law was. How could that law have been a threat to hunters who videotape and sell their hunts?
This whole post is ment to be nothing more than a conservative jab, which it falls short of.
Like I said; Animal fighting is illegal, hunting isn't. There is a big divide here that can't be bridged for the sake of saying Naaa na na naaaaa na.,
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
This whole post is ment to be nothing more than a conservative jab, which it falls short of.
Like I said; Animal fighting is illegal, hunting isn't. There is a big divide here that can't be bridged for the sake of saying Naaa na na naaaaa na.,
So if you're so smart, what should have the decision been in this case? The court did not have to hear this case if they didn't want to, obviously something drew them to it.
Supreme court decision today
