I fully support a bill that would eliminate videos that, as I phrased it to my wife yesterday, "display an illegal activity" such as dogfighting, these "pleasure videos", teenagers hurting pets for pleasure on utube, etc. But of course I hope the line is drawn between legal recreation such as hunting and these activities of blatently illegally activity.

There certainly seems to be no end of the perversion out there... kind of reminds one of ancient Rome but we can't blame it on lead pipes...

Look out for more of the same as those clever animal rights folks will uncover another "small market" device and try to use it to meet their ends...

Who was the justice that voted in favor of this bill?

1. The idea of "Crush videos" existing makes me want to hit someone. Hard. Gut reaction, I know, but true.

2. Hunting shows are getting too predictable and, well, boring. How many high-fives, kill-shots and whispers can we watch before it's ho-hum?

3. What would the "heavy-metal instrumental" artists do if we didn't have hunting shows. I guess they feel that's their demographic. I want a hunting show with Johnny Cash music.

"Crush videos" for sexual titillation? That is disgusting.

May God have mercy on us.

I really amazed me to read the uproar in the headlines and comments of people on posts. People were completely unable to see past the legal aspect of the law and focused only on the "poor animal" side. I agree there needs to be a ban on the videos as they intended, but as stated many times, it needs more defined verbiage at the same time.
.
Anyone else find it ironic that ABC World News showed clips of dogfighting while reporting on it?

I guess here in the hills in my golden years I must be leading a sheltered life. I had never heard of the videos they were talking about. I still don't understand what sexual thrill anyone could derive from what they were describing but then again I have been sheltered. I only watch FOX news but I must have missed it on there. From what the judge said he told the people to go back and get more info and bring it back to the court again. That dosen't sound like too much of a victory.

8-1 is not that great of a victory if you consider it should not have made it to the Supreme Court in the first place.

Beekeeper,
Really? Do you need to be an "animal rights folk" to want these sorts of sick videos to be banned?

I'm glad THIS bill was struck down, but I sure hope WHOEVER was behind it gets a new one proposed that is less comprehensive.

jscottevans,

Have you read Alito's dissent? If not, you're just as bad as our President who doesn't even bother to get the facts or the law right when deriding Justices for their decisions. Although I disagree with Alito, he made a principled argument in favor of the law. Please do not bash Justices based on knee-jerk media reports and scant legal understanding.

This case was heard under a first-amendment context and while the law was truly overbroad and, thus, unconstitutional, reasonable legal minds differ on the jurisprudence - both its current application and the previous expansions by earlier justices.