How can I become familiar with cases like mine?
Animal Cruelty Videos: Protected Free Speech?
Posted on Oct 07, 2009
On October 6, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the issue of whether it was constitutional for Congress to prohibit the broadcasting of a “Human Sacrifice Channel” in the United States. The facts of the case involve a federal appellate court that struck down a law against selling videos containing scenes of animal cruelty, on First Amendment freedom of speech grounds.
The Court seemed reluctant to resurrect that law due to the fear that it may be used to promote images of illegal hunting or bullfighting. Justice Antonin Scalia opined that the First Amendment prohibited the government from limiting speech unless the content involved obscenity or sex. Interestingly, Justice Samuel Alito had a series of questions regarding whether videos showing human sacrifice were analogous and would similarly be protected as free speech. He coined such programs the “Human Sacrifice Channel” and wondered whether Congress could ban such broadcasts.
The law at issue was enacted 10 years ago, in direct response to the market for videos showing women in high-heeled shoes crushing small animals. Since then, the law has generally been used to prosecute individuals selling dog-fighting videos. By the end of oral argument, the Justices seemed to be considering the possibility of either upholding the federal appeals court’s striking of the law in its entirety or narrowing the legislation to prohibit only the “crush videos.” The high court will likely enter a ruling in the next several months.
Read More About Animal Cruelty Videos: Protected Free Speech?…
