kierthos: (Default)
kierthos ([personal profile] kierthos) wrote2010-04-20 01:17 pm
  • Add Memory
  • Share This Entry

What. The. Fuck.

Supreme Court strikes down law that banned animal cruelty videos because it was a violation of free speech.

What.

I'm sorry, if you're filming videos of dog-fighting, or crush videos, yeah, that shit should be against the law, and it shouldn't fall under free speech. Fuck that.

You want to know what's even more surprising? The sole dissenter was Alito.
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[identity profile] kierthos.livejournal.com 2010-04-20 05:34 pm (UTC)(link)
If it's all make-believe, like action movies, of course not.

Documentaries, especially ones that expose dog-fighting rings, shouldn't be criminally prosecuted either. But, hell's teeth, this is the Supreme Court. They could have set a precedent by noting that it should only apply to cruel behavior towards animals/videos for profit, and it would have been fine.

[identity profile] flemco.livejournal.com 2010-04-20 05:35 pm (UTC)(link)
That is not what I asked.

Do you think video of humans being hurt or killed without their consent should be illegal?

[identity profile] kierthos.livejournal.com 2010-04-20 05:41 pm (UTC)(link)
If the videos are being deliberately made to show the actual injury or death of others, yes.

If it's "oh shit, this happened today, and we're showing it on the news", then no.

[identity profile] delwin.livejournal.com 2010-04-20 05:47 pm (UTC)(link)
To be clear - if the person recording has nothing to do with the act of killing should it be censored?

If the person recording is connected to the death (and it's not a military action) then that's called accessory to murder and it has nothing to do with the video tape.

[identity profile] kierthos.livejournal.com 2010-04-20 05:52 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm going to use the 9/11 thing that [livejournal.com profile] flemco referenced above. After the planes struck the World Trade Center, there were people who were videotaped jumping to their deaths from the building. That footage went into heavy rotation on the news. That should not be censored as it is considered documentary footage.

If the person recording is an actual accessory to assault & battery and/or murder, then while it might get played on the news (because, you know, 24 hour news cycle and all), the person who did the recording should not be allowed to profit in any way off of the recording.

[identity profile] delwin.livejournal.com 2010-04-20 05:55 pm (UTC)(link)
You already cannot profit from a crime you commit so again other laws cover this. I'm failing to see where what you fear has been allowed by this ruling.

[identity profile] flemco.livejournal.com 2010-04-20 06:05 pm (UTC)(link)
That should not be censored as it is considered documentary footage.

What if I play it over and over and jack off to it?

[identity profile] flemco.livejournal.com 2010-04-20 06:06 pm (UTC)(link)
So rather than banning a type of video, you wish to prosecute the motive?
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only