Is this violating the privacy of another individual? This guy didn't obtain anything illegally. He is in no shape or form harming another individual. How can you even make the comparison?
Is that why you think kiddy p*rn is illegal? Because it violates privacy? As long as the kid gets raped in private, it's A-Ok? And you can get things legally in Japan that violate US child p*rnography laws. That doesn't mean it is legal to sell them in the USA.
The best ones always break into rock songs. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/w-NshzYK9y0&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/w-NshzYK9y0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
So, if dog-fights were conducted so they were not to the death, then they would no longer be objectionable? Only if the charge of obscenity needs to be countered. I don't see how a dog-fight is "obscene." Without being obsecene, the work doesn't need to have any redeeming qualities at all. The law was initially intended to prosecute crush films, which I can understand as obscene. It was used to prosecute a dog-fighting video instead, which may be objectionable but not obscene, because it isn't at all sexual in nature. Here's a random link on the Supreme Court's definition of obscene: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/o002.htm [rquoter]For something to be "obscene" it must be shown that the average person, applying contemporary community standards and viewing the material as a whole, would find (1) that the work appeals predominantly to "prurient" interest; (2) that it depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and (3) that it lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. An appeal to "prurient" interest is an appeal to a morbid, degrading and unhealthy interest in sex, as distinguished from a mere candid interest in sex. The first test to be applied, therefore, in determining whether given material is obscene, is whether the predominant theme or purpose of the material, when viewed as a whole and not part by part, and when considered in relation to the intended and probable recipients, is an appeal to the prurient interest of the average person of the community as a whole, or the prurient interest of members of a deviant sexual group, as the case might be. The "predominant theme or purpose of the material, when viewed as a whole," means the main or principal thrust of the material when assessed in its entirety and on the basis of its total effect, and not on the basis of incidental themes or isolated passages or sequences....[/rquoter] I'm not sure what that even means. If cruelty is the purpose of the fight, would the consumers be just as happy if instead of a fight, they just saw a guy torture and kill a dog? Or, to make it competitive, 2 men each torturing a dog each, seeing who can make the dog suffer more. Dog-fighters may not object as much as the average individual, but I don't imagine it is as much fun as watching a fight, which is like a sport that requires skill, training, offense, defense, etc.
Interesting JV. I guess by the definition you posted it's not obscene. Maybe it's a good thing they've hired real lawyers instead of relying on my random thoughts. The obscenity discussion was really to bring in the artistic/educational "out" which exempts 'worthy' depictions. I see the article uses 'like obscenity' to draw a parallel rather then to fit this case specifically into the established definition. I'll leave the discussion as to whether dog fighting is animal cruelty. I think it clearly is. But where the line is drawn from individuals directly torturing, to a simple dog race seems moot. They're not arguing whether it's cruelty or abuse -- rather whether the First Amendment protects ones freedom to distribute depictions of animal cruelty. For whatever reason, they are not contending that it isn't animal cruelty, or that it has any serious educational/artistic merit. So...it comes down to......does the First Amendment protect one's right to distribute depictions of animal cruelty that appeal predominantly to "prurient" interest and lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value ? I vote "NO." It's not protected speech. I think if you apply the same parameters as you do with obscenity (with the exception of the sexual bit) then the restriction to free speech is narrow enough that it's in the public good.
I think we're mostly in agreement. I'd agree that dog-fighting is cruel (whether it has other merits is probably beside the point) and that censoring it would probably be a public good. I only really disagree in that I don't see a legitimate reason to abridge free speech here. I think the motivation for doing so is to protect us from ourselves, which is a pandora's box the government shouldn't be opening.
Dog fighting = child p*rn I got you. Not just a right to privacy, but general rights of man. It is an amazing difference. I think "Gangland" on the History Channel is much closer to a documentary on dog fighting, then someone watching child p*rn.
