If government is censoring speech, it's unconstitutional

Las Vegas Review-Journal ^ | 11 oct 09 | Thomas Mitchell

[rellimpank]

When it comes to the areas protected by the First Amendment, Congress should write with a scalpel and not with a buzz saw.

I wish I'd said that. Defense attorney Patricia Millett did.

She was arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of her client, Robert Stevens of Virginia, who faces prison time for selling videos of dogfights. A 1999 federal law makes it a crime to profit from depictions of animal cruelty.

The law specifically exempts "any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value." The definition of artistic value alone is vague enough to cover just about anything.

This is a case that launches a thousand head-spinning what-ifs.

What about depictions of hunting? Of bullfights? Of cockfights?

Justice Samuel Alito threw out a hypothetical that appeared to have the government lawyer agreeing that it fit within one of the law's exceptions, despite its outrageous premis

[ClearCase_guy]

The Constitution is on the dustheap of history.

[kindred]

Someday some may wake up from the dream world they live in and really open their blind eyes and hear with their deaf ears and understand that the Obama administration has no regard for the constitutional God given rights and liberties our Christian forefathers understood by READING the Scriptures. Their understanding of the Scriptures made them wise and so they wrote the Bill of Rights that made this nation the most blessed nation in the earth under God the Father. We who believe the the Lord Jesus Christ and how He alone will rule and reign over all the earth for 1000 years after the 7 year tribulation to come understand by the Word of God that mankind is inherently evil and God saves those ONLY who believe how that Jesus Christ died for our sins and was buried and rose again the third day.
The atheists and the unbelieving and the murderers and the thieves and all those who love and make a lies will be cast in the Lake of Fire for their hatred of God and their fellow man, which goes hand in hand. Most Americans are such fools (they elect depraved fools who steal their liberty and their monies and destroy our once Christian heritage and then they elect them again and again and again=fools) they make money and prestige and power and lust their gods and bow down to them and their hatred shows in their love of those that run with them and their hatred of those who live godly in Christ Jesus in this present evil world. Hence, they will sow what they reap and they ALL WILL BOW THE KNEE TO THE LORD AND KING JESUS Christ whose love they spurned and whose children they hated.
And so will be bought to pass the saying;
“The wicked forsake their own mercy”.

[Condor51]

The law specifically exempts "any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value." The definition of artistic value alone is vague enough to cover just about anything.

Not really.
All Madona movies are immediately banned.

(and half of Ben AFLAC's (quack) 'work' as well)

[InterceptPoint]

The Constitution is on the dustheap of history.

Unfortunately you are correct. In the case anyone has forgotten, here is the complete text of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now I'm no lawyer, but that text seems quite clear. In particular, MAKE NO LAW would seem to be easily understood. Apparently not so. Too bad for us.

[nathanbedford]

For me the threshold question is, where does Congress find the constitutional authority to prohibit films of animal cruelty? Why is Congress constitutionally empowered to restrict this kind of speech? Does the fact that the activity is heinous deprive those who promulgate it of their rights of free speech? Does the fact that the speech might encourage animal cruelty render the speech of a kind which might be prohibited constitutionally?

Can we prohibit films of murder which we see sometimes on surveillance cameras? What is the difference? What about everyday garden-variety porn? What about snuff films? Why does the government get to decide this?

Why is it that the proponent of speech has to find an exception? This is a way of shifting the burden from the government to the utterer of speech. In other words, the proponent of the speech has to demonstrate that his speech somehow meets an exception rather than have the government be required to prove the speech is constitutionally prohibited ab initio. Why is this two-step constitutionally permissible?

Even if it is constitutionally permissible to prohibit this kind of speech, how does the federal government get jurisdiction? Why is this not in state province?

[mewzilla]

Are snuff films protected speech, anyone know? Just curious.

[AmericanVictory]

Isn’t that that thing that was written by White slaveholders? And here we could be like Zimbabwe or Mexico. Come on, get with the times.

[ClearCase_guy]

Excellent points.

I think the "problem" with these films is summed up by Scalia: "His message is that getting animals to fight is fun. That's his message."

So, once again, we have a thought crime. A film showing animal abuse, is acceptable if PETA puts it out because PETA thinks animal cruelty is bad. But a film showing animal abuse is not acceptable if a dogfight fancier puts it out, because the dogfight fancier thinks it's fun.

Thought and intention should not enter into this at all. Either speech is protected or it is not. Congress has no jurisdiction here and ought not to be picking out "good thoughts".

[mewzilla]

Either speech is protected or it is not.

Does that include kiddie porn? Just askin' :)

[ClearCase_guy]

I think child pornography is a tough issue, frankly. Lord knows I'm opposed to it. But I also oppose the government incrementally taking away freedom.

I think that sex offenders should be caught, tried, given one appeal, and then executed. This seems to me to be the best way to halt the crime against an innocent human. The sale of material depicting that crime is abhorrent, but I have doubts about whether it should be illegal.

[rellimpank]

--seems obvious enough that the making of either "snuff" films or child pornography are prosecutable under laws pertaining to murder or statutory rape while possession of a film about it more properly is similar to possession of an illustrated book on the subject---

[ClearCase_guy]

That’s what I wanted to express, but you said it better. Thanks.

[rellimpank]

--and I believe, for example, that there are military and espionage secrets, the publishing of which should be prosecuted as treason--(some of the stuff the New York Times does, for example)--

[ClearCase_guy]

Yes. I would think that falls into the category of yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. If it can be shown that the speech creates a dangerous situation, then restriction becomes appropriate.