losing the first ammendment?

[aprophet]

http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs051/1101879232762/archive/1102607469197.html

will sean be next? maybe levine maybe elrushbo lets hope not please help.

[Mimiheart]

Looks like Deadliest Catch would be next--or most of the shows on Animal Planet.

[sgtmac_46]

You have GOT TO BE ******** ME!!! What BRAINLESS-ANUS group of retards made THAT STEAMING PILE of a LAW?! Never mind, I already know. :wall:



As a side note.......I feel compelled to correct this error....

Stevens' films were made to document the strength, endurance, and similar features of Pit Bulls to support his argument (made at length in his book) that Pit Bulls make great hunting dogs, protection dogs, and schutzhund (strength contests) dogs.

Schutzhund is not a strength contest.....has nothing to do with the issue, just annoyed me.

[sgtmac_46]

I think to make a point some entity somewhere needs to charge the Humane Society with violating this law for showing videos on TV of animals being abused.

[jeepers]

I'm all for common sense reeducation camps for idiots who think that film editing is cruelty to animals.

[LouC]

Republican Rep. Elton Gallegly

The man responsible for 18 U.S.C. § 48

LINK (http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/mar/02/rep-gallegly-tapped-for-congress-animal-group/)

From a March 2 2009 Piece

Gallegly’s affection for God’s creatures has just landed him a new gig in Congress. The Simi Valley Republican has been tapped to co-chair the newly formed Congressional Animal Protection Caucus, a bipartisan group whose goal is to raise awareness of animal welfare issues.

In 1999, he went after the perpetrators of so-called “animal crush videos” in which hamsters, rabbits and other animals were stomped to death by women. The deaths were recorded and the videotapes distributed to people who view them for sexual gratification. Gallegly’s bill made the practice illegal and essentially shut the business down overnight.

There were 52 total co-sponsors of Gallegly’s legislation, 22 fellow Republican's and 30 Democrats.

This legislation was passed readily by both houses of the 106th Congress in 1999.

Both houses of the 106th Congress were controlled by Republicans.

Then President Bill Clinton attached a signing statement to this Bill when it became Law hoping that the law would not be used to go beyond the intent, as it certainly appears to have done.


“[T]o ensure that the Act does not chill protected speech,” President Clinton’s signing statement explained that he would “broadly construe the Act’s exception” and would “interpret * * * the Act [to] prohibit the types of depictions, described in the statute’s legislative history, of wanton cruelty to animals designed to appeal to a prurient interest in sex.”

Statement by President William J. Clinton upon Signing H.R. 1887 (Dec. 9, 1999), reprinted in 1999 U.S.C.C.A.N. 324.

LINK (http://www.professionaloutdoormedia.org/images/news/Stevens_Brief_Opp.pdf)


A little clearer interpretation.

Possible First Amendment troubles were pointed out immediately by opponents of the bill. They argued that the language of the bill was overbroad and would criminalize speech that ought to be protected. The dissenters also argued that the restriction on speech did not fit into any current exceptions to the First Amendment and that protection of animals was not a compelling government interest, nor was the bill narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

Recognizing these concerns, President Bill Clinton issued a signing statement in an attempt to narrow enforcement of the statute. He stated that the Department of Justice would broadly interpret the exception for works of serious value and that works would be considered “as a whole.” He also directed the Justice Department to limit prosecutions under the statute to works “designed to appeal to a prurient interest in sex.”

LINK (http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/documents/Reynolds_Michael_82_2.pdf)

[sgtmac_46]

I'm all for common sense reeducation camps for idiots who think that film editing is cruelty to animals.

I second that motion.

[LouC]

You have GOT TO BE ******** ME!!! What BRAINLESS-ANUS group of retards made THAT STEAMING PILE of a LAW?!

It was Republicans that made it.

[sgtmac_46]

Republican Rep. Elton Gallegly

The man responsible for 18 U.S.C. § 48

LINK (http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/mar/02/rep-gallegly-tapped-for-congress-animal-group/)

From a March 2 2009 Piece



There were 52 total co-sponsors of Gallegly’s legislation, 22 fellow Republican's and 30 Democrats.

This legislation was passed readily by both houses of the 106th Congress in 1999.

Both houses of the 106th Congress were controlled by Republicans.

Then President Bill Clinton attached a signing statement to this Bill when it became Law hoping that the law would not be used to go beyond the intent, as it certainly appears to have done.



A little clearer interpretation. It just goes to show that what is REALLY dangerous in America is LEGISLATURES passing legislation based on knee-jerk reactions to things they first heard about on their emails.......and which is, in all likelihood, mostly an urban legend!

[GA_LP]

I'm curious if his lawyer did anything to fight the cherry picking of venues by the prosecution. That ALONE should overturn the conviction - he wasn't being judged by HIS peers.