Three U.S. senators introduced legislation Monday to specifically ban so-called 'crush videos' -- depictions of small animals being tortured to death by humans.
The legislation came in response to a Supreme Court ruling this year striking down a broader congressional law dealing with animal cruelty.
If that 1999 law had been upheld, it would have been only the second time the Supreme Court had identified a form of speech undeserving of protection by the First Amendment. The justices in 1982 banned the distribution of child pornography.
The videos mostly depict women -- with their faces unseen -- stomping helpless animals such as rabbits to death with spiked-heel shoes or with their bare feet. The videos apparently satisfy a sexual fetish for those who produce and watch them, said animal rights activists who supported the new bill.
The justices by an 8-1 margin struck down a broader 1999 federal law designed to stop the sale and marketing of videos showing dogfights and other acts of animal cruelty, saying it was an unconstitutional violation of free speech. That specific case dealt with a Virginia man who sold videos of dogs fighting each other at an overseas location.
When it came to dog-fighting videos, 'The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh its costs,' said Chief Justice John Roberts. He concluded Congress had not sufficiently shown 'depictions' of dogfighting were enough to justify a special category of exclusion from free speech protection.
But in dissent, Justice Samuel Alito focused his attention on crush videos. "The animals used in crush videos are living creatures that experience excruciating pain. Our society has long banned such cruelty," he said. The courts, he said, have "erred in second-guessing the legislative judgment about the importance of preventing cruelty to animals."
Alito at the time predicted more crush videos would soon flood the underground market, because the ruling has "the practical effect of legalizing the sale of such videos."
Huh (!!!)? Alito..(?)..!
Alito(??)..!
ALITO(???)...!
"WHY ....(!!!!!)...
ONLY FUCKING ONE?
You telling me.....
THE GUY WHO
RAN OVER A BLACK CAT IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE...(????)...!
THE GUY WHO
WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT BLACK CAT AND KIND ENOUGH TO STOP...(???)...!
THE GUY WHO
RANG MY DOORBELL TRYING TO FIND OWNER OF THIS BLACK CAT ..(???)..!
And....
THIS GUY WHO RANG MY DOOR BELL.
THIS GUY WHO THOUGHT NO ONE HOME AS I DEBATED NOT ANSWERING THE DOOR.
THIS GUY I SAW CROSSING THE STREET BY THE TIME I GOT TO
THE DOOR.
THIS GUY WHO GOT BACK IN HIS CAR AS I DEBATED TO HOLLER OR NOT.
THIS GUY WHO DROVE AWAY AS I CLOSED DOOR NOT WANTING TO BE BOTHERED.
And....
COMPLETELY CLOTHED A SHORT WHILE LATER .
GROWING CONCERNED AFTER SECOND THOUGHTS.
WALKING UP THE DRIVEWAY SCANNING THE ROAD.
RELIEVED UPON FINDING NOTHING SEEMING UNUSUAL.
Except...
As I cross the street approaching what looked like a small white towel beside my neighbors driveway, really wasn't thinking anything.
Way too small. Way too flat.
Not sure how to describe what happened next.
Beneath the towel.....
Curled up as if having found a cool place to rest.
Just as warm to the palm of my hand as when I woke finding him stretched beside me as usual.
Patiently waiting with big yellow eyes for beginning of yet another day.
My little buddy,
Peckerwood.
Bringing him home, craddled in my arms.
Feeling ashamed, couldn't stop thinking.
Next time must do better.
Had I been quicker to the door,
could have thanked that man for his kind thoughtful act shown
my litttle buddy,
Peckerwood.
THIS GUY COULD HAVE BEEN A......
REPUBLICAN?
No comments:
Post a Comment