Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has struck down a federal law designed to stop the sale and marketing of videos showing dogfights and other acts of animal cruelty, saying it is an unconstitutional violation of free speech.
The 8-1 decision was a defeat for animal rights groups and congressional sponsors of the legislation.
The specific case before the court dealt with tapes showing pit bulls attacking other animals and one another in staged confrontations.
The justices Tuesday concluded the scope and intent of the decade-old statute was overly broad.
"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 dog fighting enough to justify a special category of exclusion from free speech protection.
Here
Full Version: Supreme court strikes down ban on animal cruelty videos
Reminds me when Hitler did the same thing. Bastards.
Seriously, they are a bunch of morons. What about pedofile videos? Snuff films? What about their freedom of speech? I am disgusted not only on this ruling but that it was 8 to 1. They rarely get that close on anything. I hope they all get elephantitis in their privates.
Tuesday, the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution protects animal abusers who torture dogs and record their violence for sale as videos because a law Congress passed in 1999 against animal cruelty was written too vaguely, and could have been used to outlaw hunting videos. In an 8-1 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:
The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it.
And the lone hold-out? Might surprise you. It was Samuel Alito, one of the arch conservatives on the court. Rebutting the majority's view that the law was too broad, Alito argued it could still be used to stop crush videos, which apparently appeal to some people's sexual fetish by showing women in stiletto heels crushing animals to death.
"The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it most certainly does not protect violent criminal conduct, even if engaged in for expressive purposes," he wrote.
Question to legal experts: does this mean the court would find constitutionally permissible a crush video depicting people being tortured to death on video on grounds the law was written too vaguely?
Now that President Obama has a new Supreme Court nomination to make, maybe he can consider naming someone with more sensitivity to the souls of animals. First Dog Bo would probably wag his tail at that.
-- Johanna Neuman
The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it.
And the lone hold-out? Might surprise you. It was Samuel Alito, one of the arch conservatives on the court. Rebutting the majority's view that the law was too broad, Alito argued it could still be used to stop crush videos, which apparently appeal to some people's sexual fetish by showing women in stiletto heels crushing animals to death.
"The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it most certainly does not protect violent criminal conduct, even if engaged in for expressive purposes," he wrote.
Question to legal experts: does this mean the court would find constitutionally permissible a crush video depicting people being tortured to death on video on grounds the law was written too vaguely?
Now that President Obama has a new Supreme Court nomination to make, maybe he can consider naming someone with more sensitivity to the souls of animals. First Dog Bo would probably wag his tail at that.
-- Johanna Neuman
QUOTE (Grace @ Apr 20 2010, 02:25 PM) 
Seriously, they are a bunch of morons. What about pedofile videos? Snuff films? What about their freedom of speech? I am disgusted not only on this ruling but that it was 8 to 1. They rarely get that close on anything. I hope they all get elephantitis in their privates.
that was addressed in 1982 and the court decided that they were not protected speech...
Agree or not it looks like the cockfighting videos, dog fighting videos, the magazines, the phone conversations, the E-Mail and the web sites are all protected 1st amendment rights. Hope you have an aneurysm and your brain explodes in dealing with it. Course it won’t make much noise your brain ain’t that big
step one and imo a big one.
GRACE when you compare animal fighting to pedophilia and murder, you weaken your argument by making it look ridiculous.
GRACE when you compare animal fighting to pedophilia and murder, you weaken your argument by making it look ridiculous.
QUOTE (OHIOSTEVE @ Apr 21 2010, 12:49 AM)
step one and imo a big one.
GRACE when you compare animal fighting to pedophilia and murder, you weaken your argument by making it look ridiculous.
GRACE when you compare animal fighting to pedophilia and murder, you weaken your argument by making it look ridiculous.
Freedom of speech Steve. Both are illegal, yet only one is entitled to their ruling. Not very consistent. And when some Korean woman films her 6" spike high heel crushing and impaling a puppy for sexual perverts, freedom of speech will be her saving grace.
QUOTE (Grace @ Apr 21 2010, 06:26 AM)
QUOTE (OHIOSTEVE @ Apr 21 2010, 12:49 AM)
step one and imo a big one.
GRACE when you compare animal fighting to pedophilia and murder, you weaken your argument by making it look ridiculous.
GRACE when you compare animal fighting to pedophilia and murder, you weaken your argument by making it look ridiculous.
Freedom of speech Steve. Both are illegal, yet only one is entitled to their ruling. Not very consistent. And when some Korean woman films her 6" spike high heel crushing and impaling a puppy for sexual perverts, freedom of speech will be her saving grace.
Korean woman? 6"spike heels? crushing and impaling a puppy? What does any of that have to do with some fat heifer mooching a hamster in her bare feet? But I digress; you must really have been into those films to describe the content in such an eyewitness manor and such detail too
QUOTE (OHIOSTEVE @ Apr 20 2010, 10:49 PM)
step one and imo a big one.
GRACE when you compare animal fighting to pedophilia and murder, you weaken your argument by making it look ridiculous.
GRACE when you compare animal fighting to pedophilia and murder, you weaken your argument by making it look ridiculous.
Hell. She’s already done that by comparing some homeowner disposing of some vermin to Hitler and his final solution
Grizzl at EL
Where do you draw the line? How about drawing the line at the video taping of illegal activities such as dog fighting and animal cruelty? It's idiotic to allow the taping (i.e. freedom of speech) of illegal activities yet NOT allow the activities that are being taped, as they're illegal.
QUOTE
I think the decision is correct. The law was an encroachment on free speech. Eight of the nine justices, from all across the political spectrum, felt the same way. The problem is, where do you draw the line between what is a depiction of gratuitous cruelty, and what is legitimate? For example, let's say we have an instructional video that shows agriculture students how to properly castrate a steer. Is that a depiction of cruelty that should be illegal? Or a hunting instructional video that shows a deer legally being shot. A depiction of cruelty? The law was to broad and unclear about what is acceptable and what is not. And what of legitimate art? Let's say we have an artist who does a painting of a Voodoo ceremony where a chicken is sacrificed, and then sells the painting. Should that be illegal or does it have legitimate artistic value? I also find this strange: every kind of imaginable cruelty that can be inflicted upon people has been depicted in art, film, photography, music, and literature. But cruelty to animals is somehow taboo?
Where do you draw the line? How about drawing the line at the video taping of illegal activities such as dog fighting and animal cruelty? It's idiotic to allow the taping (i.e. freedom of speech) of illegal activities yet NOT allow the activities that are being taped, as they're illegal.
QUOTE (Grace @ May 2 2010, 06:07 PM)
Grizzl at EL
Where do you draw the line? How about drawing the line at the video taping of illegal activities such as dog fighting and animal cruelty? It's idiotic to allow the taping (i.e. freedom of speech) of illegal activities yet NOT allow the activities that are being taped, as they're illegal.
QUOTE
I think the decision is correct. The law was an encroachment on free speech. Eight of the nine justices, from all across the political spectrum, felt the same way. The problem is, where do you draw the line between what is a depiction of gratuitous cruelty, and what is legitimate? For example, let's say we have an instructional video that shows agriculture students how to properly castrate a steer. Is that a depiction of cruelty that should be illegal? Or a hunting instructional video that shows a deer legally being shot. A depiction of cruelty? The law was to broad and unclear about what is acceptable and what is not. And what of legitimate art? Let's say we have an artist who does a painting of a Voodoo ceremony where a chicken is sacrificed, and then sells the painting. Should that be illegal or does it have legitimate artistic value? I also find this strange: every kind of imaginable cruelty that can be inflicted upon people has been depicted in art, film, photography, music, and literature. But cruelty to animals is somehow taboo?
Where do you draw the line? How about drawing the line at the video taping of illegal activities such as dog fighting and animal cruelty? It's idiotic to allow the taping (i.e. freedom of speech) of illegal activities yet NOT allow the activities that are being taped, as they're illegal.
Are you so stupid as to believe that dog fighting or other forms of animal fighting are illegal world wide simply because you say they are? There are areas of freedom scattered through out the world where your ignorance has not penetrated and some places where the activity is protected by constitutional law...
QUOTE (Pops @ May 2 2010, 08:34 PM)
QUOTE (Grace @ May 2 2010, 06:07 PM)
Grizzl at EL
Where do you draw the line? How about drawing the line at the video taping of illegal activities such as dog fighting and animal cruelty? It's idiotic to allow the taping (i.e. freedom of speech) of illegal activities yet NOT allow the activities that are being taped, as they're illegal.
QUOTE
I think the decision is correct. The law was an encroachment on free speech. Eight of the nine justices, from all across the political spectrum, felt the same way. The problem is, where do you draw the line between what is a depiction of gratuitous cruelty, and what is legitimate? For example, let's say we have an instructional video that shows agriculture students how to properly castrate a steer. Is that a depiction of cruelty that should be illegal? Or a hunting instructional video that shows a deer legally being shot. A depiction of cruelty? The law was to broad and unclear about what is acceptable and what is not. And what of legitimate art? Let's say we have an artist who does a painting of a Voodoo ceremony where a chicken is sacrificed, and then sells the painting. Should that be illegal or does it have legitimate artistic value? I also find this strange: every kind of imaginable cruelty that can be inflicted upon people has been depicted in art, film, photography, music, and literature. But cruelty to animals is somehow taboo?
Where do you draw the line? How about drawing the line at the video taping of illegal activities such as dog fighting and animal cruelty? It's idiotic to allow the taping (i.e. freedom of speech) of illegal activities yet NOT allow the activities that are being taped, as they're illegal.
Are you so stupid as to believe that dog fighting or other forms of animal fighting are illegal world wide simply because you say they are? There are areas of freedom scattered through out the world where your ignorance has not penetrated and some places where the activity is protected by constitutional law...
You are a dumbass. There is not one mention of international animal fighting in this article. The ruling wasn't based on world wide freedom of speech vis a vis animal cruelty. How the hell would they know the difference where a video came from even if this had any basis in their ruling? Every case sited in this article was United States based. FEDERAL laws, FEDERAL interstate laws, SUPREME court. You stupid senile son of a bitch. Read the article.
QUOTE (Grace @ May 2 2010, 07:29 PM)
QUOTE (Pops @ May 2 2010, 08:34 PM)
QUOTE (Grace @ May 2 2010, 06:07 PM)
Grizzl at EL
Where do you draw the line? How about drawing the line at the video taping of illegal activities such as dog fighting and animal cruelty? It's idiotic to allow the taping (i.e. freedom of speech) of illegal activities yet NOT allow the activities that are being taped, as they're illegal.
QUOTE
I think the decision is correct. The law was an encroachment on free speech. Eight of the nine justices, from all across the political spectrum, felt the same way. The problem is, where do you draw the line between what is a depiction of gratuitous cruelty, and what is legitimate? For example, let's say we have an instructional video that shows agriculture students how to properly castrate a steer. Is that a depiction of cruelty that should be illegal? Or a hunting instructional video that shows a deer legally being shot. A depiction of cruelty? The law was to broad and unclear about what is acceptable and what is not. And what of legitimate art? Let's say we have an artist who does a painting of a Voodoo ceremony where a chicken is sacrificed, and then sells the painting. Should that be illegal or does it have legitimate artistic value? I also find this strange: every kind of imaginable cruelty that can be inflicted upon people has been depicted in art, film, photography, music, and literature. But cruelty to animals is somehow taboo?
Where do you draw the line? How about drawing the line at the video taping of illegal activities such as dog fighting and animal cruelty? It's idiotic to allow the taping (i.e. freedom of speech) of illegal activities yet NOT allow the activities that are being taped, as they're illegal.
Are you so stupid as to believe that dog fighting or other forms of animal fighting are illegal world wide simply because you say they are? There are areas of freedom scattered through out the world where your ignorance has not penetrated and some places where the activity is protected by constitutional law...
You are a dumbass. There is not one mention of international animal fighting in this article. The ruling wasn't based on world wide freedom of speech vis a vis animal cruelty. How the hell would they know the difference where a video came from even if this had any basis in their ruling? Every case sited in this article was United States based. FEDERAL laws, FEDERAL interstate laws, SUPREME court. You stupid senile son of a bitch. Read the article.
And you dumb slut where do you think the crush videos you railed against were made? Lets see I think you mentioned something about a fat Korean Woman in spiked heels... but actually according to the senator from California (who sat and watched the videos time and time again) they were made in the Philippines by a Filipino cast and crew… the videos, like it or not are protected by the first amendment... If you're like me and you don't like the vedios I'd sugest that you save yourself the angst and just not watch them.
QUOTE (Grace @ May 2 2010, 06:07 PM)
Grizzl at EL
Where do you draw the line? How about drawing the line at the video taping of illegal activities such as dog fighting and animal cruelty? It's idiotic to allow the taping (i.e. freedom of speech) of illegal activities yet NOT allow the activities that are being taped, as they're illegal.
QUOTE
I think the decision is correct. The law was an encroachment on free speech. Eight of the nine justices, from all across the political spectrum, felt the same way. The problem is, where do you draw the line between what is a depiction of gratuitous cruelty, and what is legitimate? For example, let's say we have an instructional video that shows agriculture students how to properly castrate a steer. Is that a depiction of cruelty that should be illegal? Or a hunting instructional video that shows a deer legally being shot. A depiction of cruelty? The law was to broad and unclear about what is acceptable and what is not. And what of legitimate art? Let's say we have an artist who does a painting of a Voodoo ceremony where a chicken is sacrificed, and then sells the painting. Should that be illegal or does it have legitimate artistic value? I also find this strange: every kind of imaginable cruelty that can be inflicted upon people has been depicted in art, film, photography, music, and literature. But cruelty to animals is somehow taboo?
Where do you draw the line? How about drawing the line at the video taping of illegal activities such as dog fighting and animal cruelty? It's idiotic to allow the taping (i.e. freedom of speech) of illegal activities yet NOT allow the activities that are being taped, as they're illegal.
The court ruled the way it did because the law was overly broad, meaning it did NOT draw clear lines, and thus does not stand up to Constitutional scrutiny. That ruling is, I believe, correct. Perhaps this article can further explain:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/...lds-free-speech
pops
Grace
pops
Grace
pops
Once again pops the dumbass misses the point & shifts goal posts. Please refer to the bolded above. The law has nothing to do with some Fillipino's freedom of speech First Amendment right as he's not protected by U.S. laws. The making of the videos aren't the subject here, nor are protected by the first amendment, people in the U.S. who wish to USE them, post them on the internet and profit from them are. People here in the U.S. Has nothing to do with worldwide freedom of speech as you mentioned before you bucket of maggot crap.
QUOTE
Are you so stupid as to believe that dog fighting or other forms of animal fighting are illegal world wide simply because you say they are? There are areas of freedom scattered through out the world where your ignorance has not penetrated and some places where the activity is protected by constitutional law...
Grace
QUOTE
You are a dumbass. There is not one mention of international animal fighting in this article. The ruling wasn't based on world wide freedom of speech vis a vis animal cruelty. How the hell would they know the difference where a video came from even if this had any basis in their ruling? Every case sited in this article was United States based. FEDERAL laws, FEDERAL interstate laws, SUPREME court. You stupid senile son of a bitch. Read the article.
pops
QUOTE
And you dumb slut where do you think the crush videos you railed against were made? Lets see I think you mentioned something about a fat Korean Woman in spiked heels... but actually according to the senator from California (who sat and watched the videos time and time again) they were made in the Philippines by a Filipino cast and crew… the videos, like it or not are protected by the first amendment... If you're like me and you don't like the vedios I'd sugest that you save yourself the angst and just not watch them.
Grace
QUOTE
You are a dumbass. There is not one mention of international animal fighting in this article. The ruling wasn't based on world wide freedom of speech vis a vis animal cruelty. How the hell would they know the difference where a video came from even if this had any basis in their ruling? Every case sited in this article was United States based. FEDERAL laws, FEDERAL interstate laws, SUPREME court. You stupid senile son of a bitch. Read the article.
pops
QUOTE
And you dumb slut where do you think the crush videos you railed against were made? Lets see I think you mentioned something about a fat Korean Woman in spiked heels... but actually according to the senator from California (who sat and watched the videos time and time again) they were made in the Philippines by a Filipino cast and crew… the videos, like it or not are protected by the first amendment... If you're like me and you don't like the vedios I'd sugest that you save yourself the angst and just not watch them.
Once again pops the dumbass misses the point & shifts goal posts. Please refer to the bolded above. The law has nothing to do with some Fillipino's freedom of speech First Amendment right as he's not protected by U.S. laws. The making of the videos aren't the subject here, nor are protected by the first amendment, people in the U.S. who wish to USE them, post them on the internet and profit from them are. People here in the U.S. Has nothing to do with worldwide freedom of speech as you mentioned before you bucket of maggot crap.
QUOTE (Grace @ May 3 2010, 07:41 AM)
pops
Grace
pops
Grace
pops
Once again pops the dumbass misses the point & shifts goal posts. Please refer to the bolded above. The law has nothing to do with some Fillipino's freedom of speech First Amendment right as he's not protected by U.S. laws. The making of the videos aren't the subject here, nor are protected by the first amendment, people in the U.S. who wish to USE them, post them on the internet and profit from them are. People here in the U.S. Has nothing to do with worldwide freedom of speech as you mentioned before you bucket of maggot crap.
QUOTE
Are you so stupid as to believe that dog fighting or other forms of animal fighting are illegal world wide simply because you say they are? There are areas of freedom scattered through out the world where your ignorance has not penetrated and some places where the activity is protected by constitutional law...
Grace
QUOTE
You are a dumbass. There is not one mention of international animal fighting in this article. The ruling wasn't based on world wide freedom of speech vis a vis animal cruelty. How the hell would they know the difference where a video came from even if this had any basis in their ruling? Every case sited in this article was United States based. FEDERAL laws, FEDERAL interstate laws, SUPREME court. You stupid senile son of a bitch. Read the article.
pops
QUOTE
And you dumb slut where do you think the crush videos you railed against were made? Lets see I think you mentioned something about a fat Korean Woman in spiked heels... but actually according to the senator from California (who sat and watched the videos time and time again) they were made in the Philippines by a Filipino cast and crew… the videos, like it or not are protected by the first amendment... If you're like me and you don't like the vedios I'd sugest that you save yourself the angst and just not watch them.
Grace
QUOTE
You are a dumbass. There is not one mention of international animal fighting in this article. The ruling wasn't based on world wide freedom of speech vis a vis animal cruelty. How the hell would they know the difference where a video came from even if this had any basis in their ruling? Every case sited in this article was United States based. FEDERAL laws, FEDERAL interstate laws, SUPREME court. You stupid senile son of a bitch. Read the article.
pops
QUOTE
And you dumb slut where do you think the crush videos you railed against were made? Lets see I think you mentioned something about a fat Korean Woman in spiked heels... but actually according to the senator from California (who sat and watched the videos time and time again) they were made in the Philippines by a Filipino cast and crew… the videos, like it or not are protected by the first amendment... If you're like me and you don't like the vedios I'd sugest that you save yourself the angst and just not watch them.
Once again pops the dumbass misses the point & shifts goal posts. Please refer to the bolded above. The law has nothing to do with some Fillipino's freedom of speech First Amendment right as he's not protected by U.S. laws. The making of the videos aren't the subject here, nor are protected by the first amendment, people in the U.S. who wish to USE them, post them on the internet and profit from them are. People here in the U.S. Has nothing to do with worldwide freedom of speech as you mentioned before you bucket of maggot crap.
Uhummm? Gracie you gaping, slime dripping cunt? It’s you that has missed the point; the point of origin was very much a part of the original law. However the Supreme Court ruled that you and your friends violated the constitutional right to freedom of speech with a law that was way too broad and vague in its scope. The case hinged on three videos. One was a video of a hog hunt where pit bulls were used to subdue the hog. Another was a video of a dogfight held in Japan (where its legal) and the third was a vintage (before it was against the law) video of a dogfight in the USA. And the right of anyone that is so inclinde to buy and sell as well as veiw them
what amazes me is that we as Americans claim to be the most free people on the planet, yet other countries have cock fights and dogfights legally. Other couintries recognize animals as what they are... PROPERTY.
QUOTE (Pops @ May 3 2010, 11:18 AM)
QUOTE (Grace @ May 3 2010, 07:41 AM)
pops
Grace
pops
Grace
pops
Once again pops the dumbass misses the point & shifts goal posts. Please refer to the bolded above. The law has nothing to do with some Fillipino's freedom of speech First Amendment right as he's not protected by U.S. laws. The making of the videos aren't the subject here, nor are protected by the first amendment, people in the U.S. who wish to USE them, post them on the internet and profit from them are. People here in the U.S. Has nothing to do with worldwide freedom of speech as you mentioned before you bucket of maggot crap.
QUOTE
Are you so stupid as to believe that dog fighting or other forms of animal fighting are illegal world wide simply because you say they are? There are areas of freedom scattered through out the world where your ignorance has not penetrated and some places where the activity is protected by constitutional law...
Grace
QUOTE
You are a dumbass. There is not one mention of international animal fighting in this article. The ruling wasn't based on world wide freedom of speech vis a vis animal cruelty. How the hell would they know the difference where a video came from even if this had any basis in their ruling? Every case sited in this article was United States based. FEDERAL laws, FEDERAL interstate laws, SUPREME court. You stupid senile son of a bitch. Read the article.
pops
QUOTE
And you dumb slut where do you think the crush videos you railed against were made? Lets see I think you mentioned something about a fat Korean Woman in spiked heels... but actually according to the senator from California (who sat and watched the videos time and time again) they were made in the Philippines by a Filipino cast and crew… the videos, like it or not are protected by the first amendment... If you're like me and you don't like the vedios I'd sugest that you save yourself the angst and just not watch them.
Grace
QUOTE
You are a dumbass. There is not one mention of international animal fighting in this article. The ruling wasn't based on world wide freedom of speech vis a vis animal cruelty. How the hell would they know the difference where a video came from even if this had any basis in their ruling? Every case sited in this article was United States based. FEDERAL laws, FEDERAL interstate laws, SUPREME court. You stupid senile son of a bitch. Read the article.
pops
QUOTE
And you dumb slut where do you think the crush videos you railed against were made? Lets see I think you mentioned something about a fat Korean Woman in spiked heels... but actually according to the senator from California (who sat and watched the videos time and time again) they were made in the Philippines by a Filipino cast and crew… the videos, like it or not are protected by the first amendment... If you're like me and you don't like the vedios I'd sugest that you save yourself the angst and just not watch them.
Once again pops the dumbass misses the point & shifts goal posts. Please refer to the bolded above. The law has nothing to do with some Fillipino's freedom of speech First Amendment right as he's not protected by U.S. laws. The making of the videos aren't the subject here, nor are protected by the first amendment, people in the U.S. who wish to USE them, post them on the internet and profit from them are. People here in the U.S. Has nothing to do with worldwide freedom of speech as you mentioned before you bucket of maggot crap.
Uhummm? Gracie you gaping, slime dripping cunt? It’s you that has missed the point; the point of origin was very much a part of the original law. However the Supreme Court ruled that you and your friends violated the constitutional right to freedom of speech with a law that was way too broad and vague in its scope. The case hinged on three videos. One was a video of a hog hunt where pit bulls were used to subdue the hog. Another was a video of a dogfight held in Japan (where its legal) and the third was a vintage (before it was against the law) video of a dogfight in the USA. And the right of anyone that is so inclinde to buy and sell as well as veiw them
Instead of addressing my posts you instead steal excerpts from the article or google sources and insert in your message (and editing to look like you made a typo is very transparent). This doesn't even SOUND like you. And you still make no sense. What a joke you are.
QUOTE (OHIOSTEVE @ May 3 2010, 01:03 PM)
what amazes me is that we as Americans claim to be the most free people on the planet, yet other countries have cock fights and dogfights legally. Other couintries recognize animals as what they are... PROPERTY.
Yes, by definition of law they are property - "owned or possessed" but they're more than an object, which is why laws are in place to protect and/or improve their welfare, so they don't get kicked around like a bucket. Maybe the law doesn't actually protect them in every case, but if the perpetrator is caught drop kicking a cat for example, he'll be arrested. Can the same be said if he drop kicked a bucket? You keep falling back on a very narrow viewpoint vis a vis definition.
QUOTE (Grace @ May 3 2010, 11:25 AM)
QUOTE (Pops @ May 3 2010, 11:18 AM)
QUOTE (Grace @ May 3 2010, 07:41 AM)
pops
Grace
pops
Grace
pops
Once again pops the dumbass misses the point & shifts goal posts. Please refer to the bolded above. The law has nothing to do with some Fillipino's freedom of speech First Amendment right as he's not protected by U.S. laws. The making of the videos aren't the subject here, nor are protected by the first amendment, people in the U.S. who wish to USE them, post them on the internet and profit from them are. People here in the U.S. Has nothing to do with worldwide freedom of speech as you mentioned before you bucket of maggot crap.
QUOTE
Are you so stupid as to believe that dog fighting or other forms of animal fighting are illegal world wide simply because you say they are? There are areas of freedom scattered through out the world where your ignorance has not penetrated and some places where the activity is protected by constitutional law...
Grace
QUOTE
You are a dumbass. There is not one mention of international animal fighting in this article. The ruling wasn't based on world wide freedom of speech vis a vis animal cruelty. How the hell would they know the difference where a video came from even if this had any basis in their ruling? Every case sited in this article was United States based. FEDERAL laws, FEDERAL interstate laws, SUPREME court. You stupid senile son of a bitch. Read the article.
pops
QUOTE
And you dumb slut where do you think the crush videos you railed against were made? Lets see I think you mentioned something about a fat Korean Woman in spiked heels... but actually according to the senator from California (who sat and watched the videos time and time again) they were made in the Philippines by a Filipino cast and crew… the videos, like it or not are protected by the first amendment... If you're like me and you don't like the vedios I'd sugest that you save yourself the angst and just not watch them.
Grace
QUOTE
You are a dumbass. There is not one mention of international animal fighting in this article. The ruling wasn't based on world wide freedom of speech vis a vis animal cruelty. How the hell would they know the difference where a video came from even if this had any basis in their ruling? Every case sited in this article was United States based. FEDERAL laws, FEDERAL interstate laws, SUPREME court. You stupid senile son of a bitch. Read the article.
pops
QUOTE
And you dumb slut where do you think the crush videos you railed against were made? Lets see I think you mentioned something about a fat Korean Woman in spiked heels... but actually according to the senator from California (who sat and watched the videos time and time again) they were made in the Philippines by a Filipino cast and crew… the videos, like it or not are protected by the first amendment... If you're like me and you don't like the vedios I'd sugest that you save yourself the angst and just not watch them.
Once again pops the dumbass misses the point & shifts goal posts. Please refer to the bolded above. The law has nothing to do with some Fillipino's freedom of speech First Amendment right as he's not protected by U.S. laws. The making of the videos aren't the subject here, nor are protected by the first amendment, people in the U.S. who wish to USE them, post them on the internet and profit from them are. People here in the U.S. Has nothing to do with worldwide freedom of speech as you mentioned before you bucket of maggot crap.
Uhummm? Gracie you gaping, slime dripping cunt? It’s you that has missed the point; the point of origin was very much a part of the original law. However the Supreme Court ruled that you and your friends violated the constitutional right to freedom of speech with a law that was way too broad and vague in its scope. The case hinged on three videos. One was a video of a hog hunt where pit bulls were used to subdue the hog. Another was a video of a dogfight held in Japan (where its legal) and the third was a vintage (before it was against the law) video of a dogfight in the USA. And the right of anyone that is so inclinde to buy and sell as well as veiw them
Instead of addressing my posts you instead steal excerpts from the article or google sources and insert in your message (and editing to look like you made a typo is very transparent). This doesn't even SOUND like you. And you still make no sense. What a joke you are.
Nope Gracie you great gaping slime dripping cunt, the only joke on this board is you and the rest of your monkey troop, I stole no excerpt from the article nor did I goggle a thing but I did think you could discuss the article with a semblance of intelligence… Mea culpa I should have known better
QUOTE (Grace @ May 3 2010, 12:00 PM)
QUOTE (OHIOSTEVE @ May 3 2010, 01:03 PM)
what amazes me is that we as Americans claim to be the most free people on the planet, yet other countries have cock fights and dogfights legally. Other couintries recognize animals as what they are... PROPERTY.
Yes, by definition of law they are property - "owned or possessed" but they're more than an object, which is why laws are in place to protect and/or improve their welfare, so they don't get kicked around like a bucket. Maybe the law doesn't actually protect them in every case, but if the perpetrator is caught drop kicking a cat for example, he'll be arrested. Can the same be said if he drop kicked a bucket? You keep falling back on a very narrow viewpoint vis a vis definition.
Again grace the idea that I can go to jail for ALLOWING two gamecocks to do what they do naturally, and a japanese or phillipino citizen can legally do the same thing amazes me. And why is it illegal for me to let em fight but legal to eat em? If they do indeed have any form of rights, wouldn't NOT being dinner be at the top of the list? And once again you draw in an analogy that does not fit...drop kicking a kitten or allowing two willing animals to fight is not the same. Both IMO are none of your business but not the same.
QUOTE (Grace @ Apr 20 2010, 01:25 PM)
Reminds me when Hitler did the same thing. Bastards.
When did Hitler do the same thing...
stupid slime dripping cunt what a fucking moron you are
Steve
QUOTE
Again grace the idea that I can go to jail for ALLOWING two gamecocks to do what they do naturally, and a japanese or phillipino citizen can legally do the same thing amazes me. And why is it illegal for me to let em fight but legal to eat em? If they do indeed have any form of rights, wouldn't NOT being dinner be at the top of the list? And once again you draw in an analogy that does not fit...drop kicking a kitten or allowing two willing animals to fight is not the same. Both IMO are none of your business but not the same.
You know I started to challenge your gamecocks doing what "comes naturally" and your other points, and then thought jesus christ how many times have we had this argument? With the same questions and answers? I haven't changed, nor have you. We'll just agree to disagree.
pops
Now see that sounds more like you.
QUOTE
Nope Gracie you great gaping slime dripping cunt, the only joke on this board is you and the rest of your monkey troop, I stole no excerpt from the article nor did I goggle a thing but I did think you could discuss the article with a semblance of intelligence… Mea culpa I should have known better
Now see that sounds more like you.
QUOTE (Grace @ May 4 2010, 01:41 PM)
pops
Now see that sounds more like you.
QUOTE
Nope Gracie you great gaping slime dripping cunt, the only joke on this board is you and the rest of your monkey troop, I stole no excerpt from the article nor did I goggle a thing but I did think you could discuss the article with a semblance of intelligence… Mea culpa I should have known better
Now see that sounds more like you.
Lets just say that your stupidity brings out the worst in me
QUOTE (Grace @ May 4 2010, 01:40 PM)
Steve
You know I started to challenge your gamecocks doing what "comes naturally" and your other points, and then thought jesus christ how many times have we had this argument? With the same questions and answers? I haven't changed, nor have you. We'll just agree to disagree.
QUOTE
Again grace the idea that I can go to jail for ALLOWING two gamecocks to do what they do naturally, and a japanese or phillipino citizen can legally do the same thing amazes me. And why is it illegal for me to let em fight but legal to eat em? If they do indeed have any form of rights, wouldn't NOT being dinner be at the top of the list? And once again you draw in an analogy that does not fit...drop kicking a kitten or allowing two willing animals to fight is not the same. Both IMO are none of your business but not the same.
You know I started to challenge your gamecocks doing what "comes naturally" and your other points, and then thought jesus christ how many times have we had this argument? With the same questions and answers? I haven't changed, nor have you. We'll just agree to disagree.
Hard to challenge the truth grace. Regaedless it still should be none of your business until I force you to watch.
QUOTE (OHIOSTEVE @ May 4 2010, 06:27 PM)
QUOTE (Grace @ May 4 2010, 01:40 PM)
Steve
You know I started to challenge your gamecocks doing what "comes naturally" and your other points, and then thought jesus christ how many times have we had this argument? With the same questions and answers? I haven't changed, nor have you. We'll just agree to disagree.
QUOTE
Again grace the idea that I can go to jail for ALLOWING two gamecocks to do what they do naturally, and a japanese or phillipino citizen can legally do the same thing amazes me. And why is it illegal for me to let em fight but legal to eat em? If they do indeed have any form of rights, wouldn't NOT being dinner be at the top of the list? And once again you draw in an analogy that does not fit...drop kicking a kitten or allowing two willing animals to fight is not the same. Both IMO are none of your business but not the same.
You know I started to challenge your gamecocks doing what "comes naturally" and your other points, and then thought jesus christ how many times have we had this argument? With the same questions and answers? I haven't changed, nor have you. We'll just agree to disagree.
Hard to challenge the truth grace. Regaedless it still should be none of your business until I force you to watch.
Oh well here we go. Is it none of my business if a child is starving to death in Somalia just because I'm not watching him/her starve? Is it none of my business someone was raped and murdered just because I wasn't a witness? Now Steve will come back with me comparing animals to children or women....vs. what's my business, or not, regardless I'm not in the audience.
QUOTE (Grace @ May 4 2010, 02:46 PM)
QUOTE (OHIOSTEVE @ May 4 2010, 06:27 PM)
QUOTE (Grace @ May 4 2010, 01:40 PM)
Steve
You know I started to challenge your gamecocks doing what "comes naturally" and your other points, and then thought jesus christ how many times have we had this argument? With the same questions and answers? I haven't changed, nor have you. We'll just agree to disagree.
QUOTE
Again grace the idea that I can go to jail for ALLOWING two gamecocks to do what they do naturally, and a japanese or phillipino citizen can legally do the same thing amazes me. And why is it illegal for me to let em fight but legal to eat em? If they do indeed have any form of rights, wouldn't NOT being dinner be at the top of the list? And once again you draw in an analogy that does not fit...drop kicking a kitten or allowing two willing animals to fight is not the same. Both IMO are none of your business but not the same.
You know I started to challenge your gamecocks doing what "comes naturally" and your other points, and then thought jesus christ how many times have we had this argument? With the same questions and answers? I haven't changed, nor have you. We'll just agree to disagree.
Hard to challenge the truth grace. Regaedless it still should be none of your business until I force you to watch.
Oh well here we go. Is it none of my business if a child is starving to death in Somalia just because I'm not watching him/her starve? Is it none of my business someone was raped and murdered just because I wasn't a witness? Now Steve will come back with me comparing animals to children or women....vs. what's my business, or not, regardless I'm not in the audience.
The object of the comparison doesn't even matter that much in this case. The real question is whether you think it is other people's business that you commision the deaths of animals for your pleasure. Which you in fact do. And which you probably don't think is anyone else's business.
RF
No, it doesn't matter that much. I can use countless comparisons, which really don't matter in this case. Specifically.
RF
I do respect other peoples' viewpoints (vegans, vegetarians etc. which frown upon meat eating). It is their business. Everyone is entitled to their business. It's their right. As Steve has a right to his business. Which is my business too. Because I said so.
QUOTE
[The object of the comparison doesn't even matter that much in this case.
No, it doesn't matter that much. I can use countless comparisons, which really don't matter in this case. Specifically.
RF
QUOTE
The real question is whether you think it is other people's business that you commision the deaths of animals for your pleasure. Which you in fact do. And which you probably don't think is anyone else's business.
I do respect other peoples' viewpoints (vegans, vegetarians etc. which frown upon meat eating). It is their business. Everyone is entitled to their business. It's their right. As Steve has a right to his business. Which is my business too. Because I said so.
QUOTE (Grace @ May 4 2010, 07:31 PM)
RF
I do respect other peoples' viewpoints (vegans, vegetarians etc. which frown upon meat eating). It is their business. Everyone is entitled to their business. It's their right. As Steve has a right to his business. Which is my business too. Because I said so.
QUOTE
The real question is whether you think it is other people's business that you commision the deaths of animals for your pleasure. Which you in fact do. And which you probably don't think is anyone else's business.
I do respect other peoples' viewpoints (vegans, vegetarians etc. which frown upon meat eating). It is their business. Everyone is entitled to their business. It's their right. As Steve has a right to his business. Which is my business too. Because I said so.
You were talking elsewhere about us not getting along long ago... See, back in the day I'd have taken you absolutely literally. Now I understand that it's a joke. A bewildering joke, but a joke none the less.
And I've also learned how you veil a concession....
QUOTE (XXMag @ May 4 2010, 11:48 PM)
QUOTE (Grace @ May 4 2010, 07:31 PM)
RF
I do respect other peoples' viewpoints (vegans, vegetarians etc. which frown upon meat eating). It is their business. Everyone is entitled to their business. It's their right. As Steve has a right to his business. Which is my business too. Because I said so.
QUOTE
The real question is whether you think it is other people's business that you commision the deaths of animals for your pleasure. Which you in fact do. And which you probably don't think is anyone else's business.
I do respect other peoples' viewpoints (vegans, vegetarians etc. which frown upon meat eating). It is their business. Everyone is entitled to their business. It's their right. As Steve has a right to his business. Which is my business too. Because I said so.
You were talking elsewhere about us not getting along long ago... See, back in the day I'd have taken you absolutely literally. Now I understand that it's a joke. A bewildering joke, but a joke none the less.
And I've also learned how you veil a concession....
One of the things I like about you is your vocabulary. "Bewildering" is a word that gets little use these days. Cretin is another.
QUOTE (Grace @ May 4 2010, 04:46 PM)
QUOTE (OHIOSTEVE @ May 4 2010, 06:27 PM)
QUOTE (Grace @ May 4 2010, 01:40 PM)
Steve
You know I started to challenge your gamecocks doing what "comes naturally" and your other points, and then thought jesus christ how many times have we had this argument? With the same questions and answers? I haven't changed, nor have you. We'll just agree to disagree.
QUOTE
Again grace the idea that I can go to jail for ALLOWING two gamecocks to do what they do naturally, and a japanese or phillipino citizen can legally do the same thing amazes me. And why is it illegal for me to let em fight but legal to eat em? If they do indeed have any form of rights, wouldn't NOT being dinner be at the top of the list? And once again you draw in an analogy that does not fit...drop kicking a kitten or allowing two willing animals to fight is not the same. Both IMO are none of your business but not the same.
You know I started to challenge your gamecocks doing what "comes naturally" and your other points, and then thought jesus christ how many times have we had this argument? With the same questions and answers? I haven't changed, nor have you. We'll just agree to disagree.
Hard to challenge the truth grace. Regaedless it still should be none of your business until I force you to watch.
Oh well here we go. Is it none of my business if a child is starving to death in Somalia just because I'm not watching him/her starve? Is it none of my business someone was raped and murdered just because I wasn't a witness? Now Steve will come back with me comparing animals to children or women....vs. what's my business, or not, regardless I'm not in the audience.
Translation... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWGeCqszY8s...feature=related
QUOTE (Grace @ May 4 2010, 04:46 PM)
QUOTE (OHIOSTEVE @ May 4 2010, 06:27 PM)
QUOTE (Grace @ May 4 2010, 01:40 PM)
Steve
You know I started to challenge your gamecocks doing what "comes naturally" and your other points, and then thought jesus christ how many times have we had this argument? With the same questions and answers? I haven't changed, nor have you. We'll just agree to disagree.
QUOTE
Again grace the idea that I can go to jail for ALLOWING two gamecocks to do what they do naturally, and a japanese or phillipino citizen can legally do the same thing amazes me. And why is it illegal for me to let em fight but legal to eat em? If they do indeed have any form of rights, wouldn't NOT being dinner be at the top of the list? And once again you draw in an analogy that does not fit...drop kicking a kitten or allowing two willing animals to fight is not the same. Both IMO are none of your business but not the same.
You know I started to challenge your gamecocks doing what "comes naturally" and your other points, and then thought jesus christ how many times have we had this argument? With the same questions and answers? I haven't changed, nor have you. We'll just agree to disagree.
Hard to challenge the truth grace. Regaedless it still should be none of your business until I force you to watch.
Oh well here we go. Is it none of my business if a child is starving to death in Somalia just because I'm not watching him/her starve? Is it none of my business someone was raped and murdered just because I wasn't a witness? Now Steve will come back with me comparing animals to children or women....vs. what's my business, or not, regardless I'm not in the audience.
well you did, but that aside.....those activities are harmful to society.. how is cockfighting or dogfighting? Also it would be a crime for me to kill and eat a child or a woman but perfectly legal to do the same to a dog or a rooster....BUT allow them to fight and I go to prison. Does that seriously even come close to making sense to you?
QUOTE (OHIOSTEVE @ May 5 2010, 06:21 AM)
Also it would be a crime for me to kill and eat a child or a woman but perfectly legal to do the same to a dog or a rooster....BUT allow them to fight and I go to prison. Does that seriously even come close to making sense to you?
It makes sense to me when I look at it in the context of it allowing certain people to accrue power over others.
Grace
Steve
No I didn't.
Steve
Harmful to the starving child, but how does it harm you, when if you're not a witness to it?
Steve
It spawns violence, drug wars, thievery, murder, and killer roosters.
Steve
No. I don't know where you come up with this shit.
QUOTE
Oh well here we go. Is it none of my business if a child is starving to death in Somalia just because I'm not watching him/her starve? Is it none of my business someone was raped and murdered just because I wasn't a witness? Now Steve will come back with me comparing animals to children or women....vs. what's my business, or not, regardless I'm not in the audience.
Steve
QUOTE
well you did, but that aside
No I didn't.
Steve
QUOTE
.....those activities are harmful to society..
Harmful to the starving child, but how does it harm you, when if you're not a witness to it?
Steve
QUOTE
how is cockfighting or dogfighting?
It spawns violence, drug wars, thievery, murder, and killer roosters.
Steve
QUOTE
Also it would be a crime for me to kill and eat a child or a woman but perfectly legal to do the same to a dog or a rooster....BUT allow them to fight and I go to prison. Does that seriously even come close to making sense to you?
No. I don't know where you come up with this shit.
QUOTE (Grace @ May 5 2010, 09:40 AM)
It spawns violence, drug wars, thievery, murder, and killer roosters.
No Gracie, Its the human condition that spawns violence, drug wars, thievery, and murder
and killer roosters are "spawned" by nature.
QUOTE (Grace @ May 5 2010, 10:40 AM)
Grace
Steve
No I didn't.
Steve
Harmful to the starving child, but how does it harm you, when if you're not a witness to it?
Steve
It spawns violence, drug wars, thievery, murder, and killer roosters.
Steve
No. I don't know where you come up with this shit.
QUOTE
Oh well here we go. Is it none of my business if a child is starving to death in Somalia just because I'm not watching him/her starve? Is it none of my business someone was raped and murdered just because I wasn't a witness? Now Steve will come back with me comparing animals to children or women....vs. what's my business, or not, regardless I'm not in the audience.
Steve
QUOTE
well you did, but that aside
No I didn't.
Steve
QUOTE
.....those activities are harmful to society..
Harmful to the starving child, but how does it harm you, when if you're not a witness to it?
Steve
QUOTE
how is cockfighting or dogfighting?
It spawns violence, drug wars, thievery, murder, and killer roosters.
Steve
QUOTE
Also it would be a crime for me to kill and eat a child or a woman but perfectly legal to do the same to a dog or a rooster....BUT allow them to fight and I go to prison. Does that seriously even come close to making sense to you?
No. I don't know where you come up with this shit.
Because a possibly productive member of society is being harmed. That and we as a society place a high value on human life.
And the drug wars and violence is bullshit grace. I attended an event recently with over 400 people there.. never saw even one argument or any evidence of drug use. Can you provide any evidence to support this claim? EDITED TO ADD____ I spent a couple of days at the belterra casino this past weekend and saw more arguing there than at the other event I attended.
And me coming up with this shit is simply telling the truth. It is 100% legal for ME to kill a rooster. However if I allow another rooster to do it I can be sent to prison. Now please explain to me how that makes any sense to you at all.
QUOTE (RF @ May 5 2010, 10:03 AM)
QUOTE (OHIOSTEVE @ May 5 2010, 06:21 AM)
Also it would be a crime for me to kill and eat a child or a woman but perfectly legal to do the same to a dog or a rooster....BUT allow them to fight and I go to prison. Does that seriously even come close to making sense to you?
It makes sense to me when I look at it in the context of it allowing certain people to accrue power over others.
AMEN RF...It is about NOTHING except controlling what other folks do. I recently attended an event that required you to drive out into the middle of nowhere down gravel roads and out into a big clearing. NO visible neighbors nywhere...NO WAY did this event have an impact on anyone except those in attendance.
QUOTE (Grace @ May 4 2010, 04:46 PM)
Is it none of my business if a child is starving to death in Somalia just because I'm not watching him/her starve? Is it none of my business someone was raped and murdered just because I wasn't a witness?
In the most pragmatic sense, no they are none of your business. Because you choose not to make them your business. You choose to do nothing about them despite the fact that you know they go on.
Having the opinion of "Wow, it's sad that happens," is not making something your business.
In the same sense, cockfighting etc. is none of my business.
QUOTE (Gloryroad @ May 28 2010, 02:44 PM)
QUOTE (Grace @ May 4 2010, 04:46 PM)
Is it none of my business if a child is starving to death in Somalia just because I'm not watching him/her starve? Is it none of my business someone was raped and murdered just because I wasn't a witness?
In the most pragmatic sense, no they are none of your business. Because you choose not to make them your business. You choose to do nothing about them despite the fact that you know they go on.
Having the opinion of "Wow, it's sad that happens," is not making something your business.
In the same sense, cockfighting etc. is none of my business.
Why couldn't anyone else explain it like that.
QUOTE (Grace @ May 28 2010, 01:24 PM)
QUOTE (Gloryroad @ May 28 2010, 02:44 PM)
QUOTE (Grace @ May 4 2010, 04:46 PM)
Is it none of my business if a child is starving to death in Somalia just because I'm not watching him/her starve? Is it none of my business someone was raped and murdered just because I wasn't a witness?
In the most pragmatic sense, no they are none of your business. Because you choose not to make them your business. You choose to do nothing about them despite the fact that you know they go on.
Having the opinion of "Wow, it's sad that happens," is not making something your business.
In the same sense, cockfighting etc. is none of my business.
Why couldn't anyone else explain it like that.
I'm pretty sure I stole it from RF. :P
Now, some people of my philosophical bent spend their time frothing about those who clamor for laws and regulations. Not me. Because, quite frankly, if I don't like a law I just ignore it.
And the funny thing is, so does most everyone else. Unless they think a cop is looking of course.
QUOTE
Now, some people of my philosophical bent spend their time frothing about those who clamor for laws and regulations.
*Meekly raises hand*
QUOTE (RF @ May 28 2010, 12:33 PM)
QUOTE
Now, some people of my philosophical bent spend their time frothing about those who clamor for laws and regulations.
*Meekly raises hand*
Well, bro. You gotta have a hobby.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.