Supreme Court to Hear Animal Fetish Case

Supreme Court to Hear Animal Fetish Case

Seeing how we had a close brush with animal porn some time ago, here's something mildly relevant. I put it here instead of Antidotes because, seriously, videos of women crushing hamsters!? THE FUCK???

Quote :

Kittens, brutality, fetish videos, and dogfighting—these aren't the
elements of a twisted cable-television show; they're just some of the
factors in one of Tuesday's U.S. Supreme Court cases that will kick off
the court’s new term. The court will hear the federal government's appeal of U.S. v. Stevens,
a circuit court's overturning of a 1999 federal law that makes it a
crime to create, sell, or possess depictions of animal cruelty for
commercial gain. If the court reverses the lower court's decision and
reinstates the law, images showing the intentional torture or killing
of animals would be deemed illegal. But technically, so might
depictions of bullfighting in Spain or fishing and hunting out of
season.

Quote :

Sexual-fetish videos called “crush videos”
became an Internet craze in the late 1990s, picturing women in their
bare feet or high heels crushing to death small animals such as mice or
kittens. Congress passed a law in 1999 to outlaw the production of the
videos, and distribution of them came to a halt. Though the law has
been in effect for years, no one was ever prosecuted for producing a
crush video. Instead, in 2004, a Virginia man was the first person to
be indicted under the law for selling what he claims is an educational
film.

[...]

Quote :

If the Supreme Court overturns the circuit-court decision and upholds
the law, depictions of animal cruelty will join the ranks of child
pornography, obscenity, defamatory speech, and fighting words as
expressions that aren't worthy of First Amendment protection. In
hearing the case, the court will analyze depictions of animal cruelty
the same way it would child pornography, and determine whether there is
a compelling government interest to eliminate this form of expression.
Making child pornography illegal has the compelling interest of
protecting children from sexual abuse and exploitation. But what
compelling interest is served by eliminating depictions of animal
cruelty?

Bolding mine. Wank! Er, discuss!

and why can't they just make the actual abuse of the animal illegal? Oh wait, they did.

It's very similar to Child Porn, you're damaging (in this case, probably destroying) something innocent that has done nothing to deserve it for no other reason than because it makes you horny.
Also, how the hell could watching an animal be stepped on be educational?

To be fair, the video in the case is about training pitbulls.

Quote :

Robert Stevens is a self-described dog trainer, author, and
documentarian. He owned and operated Dogs of Velvet and Steel, a
business he claimed provided books, videos, and other materials about
training pit bulls. Three films were purchased through the mail by
Pennsylvania law-enforcement agents, who were concerned about one scene
that pictured a pit bull attacking a pig, and a second clip that
depicted pit bulls fighting each other in Japan, where such activities
are legal. At trial, Stevens asserted that his videos demonstrated the
right and wrong way to train pit bulls for hunting.

But if legalising that sort of educational video would allow all the weird crush fetish bollocks then what are they to do?

Dog fighting is also awful of course.

Quote :

If the court reverses the lower court's decision and
reinstates the law, images showing the intentional torture or killing
of animals would be deemed illegal. But technically, so might
depictions of bullfighting in Spain or fishing and hunting out of
season.

Uh, are you sure?

I wasn't aware the Court could make laws. They could allow the government to make a law against it, but that's about it.

Which is PROBABLY a good idea. Legitimately educational stuff and such is one thing, but curb stomping a FUR COAT OF PURE EVIL cat is different.

Ceres wrote:

Quote :

...He owned and operated Dogs of Velvet and Steel ...

Anyone else read that and think 'bad porn euphemism'?

Crush videos make me cry. Those poor little snails :<

Although, the headline is misleading. The crush fetish obviously isn't about animals, it's about female domination.

...c'mon, I can't be the only one here who took a Human Sexuality class and was bugged by that.

Delly wrote:

Although, the headline is misleading. The crush fetish obviously isn't about animals, it's about female domination.

...c'mon, I can't be the only one here who took a Human Sexuality class and was bugged by that.

That your college offers a Human Sexuality class disqualifies it from being a real college. That you fucking TOOK the class makes you Dumber Than Mikey.

I'm a little unclear on this. It sounds like the pitbull video doesn't contain any actual footage that was shot for the purposes of the film, but footage that already existed and was actually being used for educational purposes. If that's actually the case, then it seems a little weird to be prosecuting the guy under this.

Delcat wrote:

Crush videos make me cry. Those poor little snails :<

Although, the headline is misleading. The crush fetish obviously isn't about animals, it's about female domination.

...c'mon, I can't be the only one here who took a Human Sexuality class and was bugged by that.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] *is sad about snails, too* [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Nope, I knew that too. It's not sadism, really (in that they're not getting off on the suffering of the animals); crush videos are about female domination, foot fetishes, GTS... Well, I suppose some viewers could be motivated by sadism, but that's not really the fetish that the videos are made for.

Now, I have nothing against femdom, foot fetish, or GTS stuff, but I do personally think that crush videos that kill live animals cross a moral line. Stuff can and is made that is crush/foot fetish/GTS-centric, but does not involve live animals (much less animals that can feel pain, such as kittens or mice - not sure about the pain capacity of insects).

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

That your college offers a Human Sexuality class disqualifies it from being a real college. That you fucking TOOK the class makes you Dumber Than Mikey.

Uh, Mikey? It's a standard psychology course. Sexuality is an enormous part of psychology and thus requires more in-depth study than Psych 101 covers. There are also Abnormal Psychology and Criminal Deviance classes, because those require in-depth study. There are plenty of things that probably should disqualify it from being a real college, but that is definitely not one of them. Better luck next time.

now that ARMADILLO Sexuality class, I'm still questioning whether or not THAT one is gonna transfer...

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

That your college offers a Human Sexuality class disqualifies it from being a real college. That you fucking TOOK the class makes you Dumber Than Mikey. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Delcat already covered this, but damn, you're fucking stupid.