# Dog Fight Videos Upheld



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Supreme Court strikes down law banning dogfight videos – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

FOXNews.com - Supreme Court Weighs Free Speech in Dog Fighting Case


----------



## dogsnkiddos (Jul 22, 2008)

I cannot understand how promotional materials for an illegal activity are covered by free speech....we have limitations on pornography (for example sex with a child is illegal- and so is the photography, video, etc thereof) so why is a law establishing a similar such restriction unconstitutional? I am disgusted.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Reading the articles, I have to say I agree with the SC. Their verdict is that a law banning videos of "animal cruelty" (it wasn't limited to dog fighting) is unconstitutional, but they state that one of their main reasons for reversing the law against videos was that it was too vague and could be interpreted to also include anything that anyone *might* consider cruel to animals, and wasn't limited to things legally considered to be animal cruelty. This could include hunting, fishing, and anything else one might deem to be "animal cruelty".. which according to the likes of PETA would include any dog training, competitions or people showing cute videos of their animal slaves (pets).

Their point is to prossecute anyone with videos of animal cruelty under existing cruelty laws, not some new video law that could potentially have ramifications elsewhere.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 15, 2009)

dogsnkiddos said:


> I cannot understand how promotional materials for an illegal activity are covered by free speech....we have limitations on pornography (for example sex with a child is illegal- and so is the photography, video, etc thereof) so why is a law establishing a similar such restriction unconstitutional? I am disgusted.


We have all kinds of for profit recoding of illegal activities. From Cops TV show, to dumbest criminal shows, to the evening news profiting from showing crimes in progress, live from a helicopter.

They said the law was too vague, just as they may do soon with child pornography laws, as some parents are being prosecuted for any picture of their children that someone could deem suggestive.

My own mother could have been prosecuted for the pictures she took of us kids taking a bath way back in the 1960's that were "cute", but we were undressed, so it is technically enough to send mom to prison.


----------

