the supreme court today ruled to allow the sale of videos showing animals being tortured. oddly the only dissenter was justice alito, who is normally quite right wing and conservative:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hrs_8csElBknniLX6saFhRg8IZuQD9F6TF780
so let me ask a question: in the united states it is illegal to torture animals. but now it’s legal to sell and distribute videos showing animal torture, which is a criminal activity. so, the question is: what about videos of other criminal activities? if it’s legal to sell a videotape of an animal being tortured (which is a criminal act) how can anyone argue, now that precedent has been established, that it should be illegal to sell a videotape of a human being tortured? wouldn’t that also now be protected as ‘free speech’? and what about pedophilia? torturing humans and having sex with children are both illegal, but the supreme court has now ruled that it’s ok to sell videos of criminal acts, so i guess they’re condoning the sale of video of humans being tortured and video of sex with children?
that’s the danger with legal precedent, once established it’s hard to argue that precedent should, or can, be restricted. sometimes that works to the good (civil rights, a womans right to vote, for example). and sometimes that works for the bad (people now being able to argue based on supreme court ruling that the sale of pedophile videos should be protected as free speech).
for what it’s worth, i don’t believe that the founding fathers ever intended to protect anyone’s right to sell images of animals or humans or children being tortured. i appreciate that the supreme court in general try to err on the side of 1st amendment rights, but i can only assume that there’s legal precedent for restricting 1st amendment rights when they involve the sale and distribution of images of egregious criminal activities.
moby