That was certainly the case yesterday when the US Supreme Court struck down a law designed to stop the sale and marketing of videos showing dogfights and other acts of animal cruelty that I will spare from you.
"The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh its costs," said Chief Justice John Roberts. He concluded Congress had not sufficiently shown "depictions" of dogfighting were enough to justify a special category of exclusion from free speech protection.
Free speech? You mean it's illegal to stage a dogfight (ask Michael Vick) but it's okay to video it?
Only Justice Alito -- one of the most conservative justices on the court -- had the decency to uphold the law. "The animals used in ...(these) videos are living creatures that experience excruciating pain. Our society has long banned such cruelty," he said. The courts, he said, have "erred in second-guessing the legislative judgment about the importance of preventing cruelty to animals."
Amen to that. And shame on the court for not protecting defenseless living beings.
Free speech? You mean it's illegal to stage a dogfight (ask Michael Vick) but it's okay to video it?
Only Justice Alito -- one of the most conservative justices on the court -- had the decency to uphold the law. "The animals used in ...(these) videos are living creatures that experience excruciating pain. Our society has long banned such cruelty," he said. The courts, he said, have "erred in second-guessing the legislative judgment about the importance of preventing cruelty to animals."
Amen to that. And shame on the court for not protecting defenseless living beings.
No comments:
Post a Comment