Click Cartoon for Larger Size
FAIR WARNING: We have to apologize in advance that today's topic is disturbing...and if you had a hard time with the cartoon, you may want to skip the details in the link below. That being said, we really DO have a point to make beyond pure revulsion.
The Supreme Court has struck down a law intended to prevent the spread of so-called "Crush videos," in which women torture and kill small animals while engaging in sexual language. The reason given is that the law, as written, was overly broad...and so is a violation of Constitutionally protected free speech.
This is not a partisan issue. The court voted 8-1 to strike down the law, both conservatives and liberals, and we can only imagine the distaste and reluctance of the justices who cast those votes in order to protect the right of free speech.
The justices understood the absolutely critical and essential importance of free speech to our country. But if such horrendous "speech" is protected...what kind of speech should not be protected?
According to the mainstream media, complaints about taxes, the national debt, and lack of transparency or accountability in government are being described as "seditious," especially when uttered by people like Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin.
All of which is to say that the Supreme Court understands the importance of free speech, and those who are attacking conservatives and the Tea Party movement (including an all-too-visible Bill Clinton) do not. And make no mistake- the enemies of Constitutionally protected speech, whether by intent or ignorance - are dangerous enemies of freedom.
Postscript: the Supreme Court has said that a more narrowly worded law against "crush videos" probably would pass Constitutional muster, and we certainly hope that lawmakers will waste no time in getting one enacted.
7 comments:
I knew this kind of despicable thing. Some people are really, really twisted.
I just threw up too.
Sick people.
Free speech is what you SAY not what you DO. Good grief.
Stomping animals is not "free speech" just like ripping babies apart in the womb is not "free speech" (and shouldn't be "free" at all...)
Speaking of that...isn't that what abortion really is? People have sex...and then...various methods of ripping limbs, or crushing skulls are used to dispose of one baby so it can be done all over again???? Only its done on a HUMAN rather than a rodent or whatever else.
Anyways....
Free speech is what liberals are trying to stop the conservatives from doing...but what they howl for their "rights" when the tables are turned.
The Supreme Court got this one right. The well-intended law against "crush" films was way too broad. The Nature channel could conceivably be in violation. A narrower law can fix this matter. But I agree so much with Suzy's horror over the killing of unborn children. Most people are understandably horrified by the deliberate murder of kitties and puppies. Where is that collective outrage over the mutilation of unborn babies? The disconnect is appalling. As is a previous Supreme Court's decision giving women the right to let their doctor crush their baby's skull.
Surely the actions taking place in these videos are punishable under existing animal cruelty laws. The making of a video is "free speech", but in this case, wouldn't the film maker also be an accessory to the crime?
Some actions are a part of free speech (no matter how repulsive we find them), like flag burning, but I don't think abortion has even been considered a "free speech" issue.
I agree that the Supreme Court got this ruling correct for the law as it was written. I'm happy to say I never heard of this disgusting practice before now, and sad to say I will now have a problem getting the unbidden images out of my head!
I read that these films have been around for decades and it has been hard for authorities to track down the actual film makers who can already be charged with crimes under existing laws. That's why they cast an overly large net in the new law. I'm glad the justices showed that they could support a narrower law. The near universal decision by the court does show how important free speech is for our country.
As much as I disagree with animal cruelty and turds that have strange sexual a rousements fetish I still have to stand for the right to say what you want because if I silence anyone for any reason it will eventually silence me and that would mean total control; by big brother. You just have to have enough brains to turn off and tune out what you know is not correct.
You've got it right, Suzy. Not what you DO, but what you SAY.
Maybe they can use the "I know it when I see it" system.
Post a Comment