Videos of dead or dying kitties and puppies are OK!

Okay, here is the law:

You’re right - the link in the OP left out the “if such conduct is illegal” bit. Forget I said anything.

So, Wilbo’s understanding is not accurate.

Provided that the hunting and processing activities depicted are in fact legal in the state(s) where the video is created and sold, the law would not have applied.

In fact, the law applied only to videos (or other depictions) of events staged “with the intention…of commercial gain.”

The exception for “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value” does not appear to be structured in such a way as to say that videos (or other depictions) must have this value to be legal, but rather that even depictions which would be illegal under the other provisions, are still excepted if the case is made that they possess this value.

What are you referring to? Ain’t no shaking to be done once SCOTUS has its shake. Unless you are referring to how they may try to re-create the law?

It’s not vigilanteism, it’s my hobby - in the same way the female human animal likes to stamp on cuddly little creatures for the entertainment of other human animals, I’d like to kick to a pulp those providing and enjoying the entertainment, for the entertainment of other like-minded creatures as myself.

Where’s the problem? I’d just be providing a service to those who like non-human animals for reasons other than to eat them, or use them.

I stand corrected. It sounds like the gist of the SCOTUS opinion is that your kitties do not have the same standing as your children.

The way I read that law is that if the act would have been a crime in the state where the video is sold, the video violates the law, even if the act isn’t a crime in the state where the video is filmed. So for example, a hunting video showing someone shooting a deer with a .308 would violate the law if it was sold in Massachusetts, since in MA one can only hunt deer with slugs:

“…if such conduct is illegal under Federal law or the law of the State in which the creation, sale, or possession takes place, regardless of whether the maiming, mutilation, torture, wounding, or killing took place in the State…”

So any hunting/fishing video that violates the game laws of another state would technically be in violation of this law.

Yes (if sold across state lines)… though the producer of such a video could probably have made the argument for the “educational value” exception, or something.

But still, doesn’t that strike you as unreasonably broad? Animal cruelty laws exist because, we, as a people, think that being cruel to animals is a bad thing. But game laws exist because of very specific circumstances in a state - deer slugs aren’t required in MA because of cruelty concerns, they’re required because slugs have a much shorter range than rifles and MA is densely populated.

Heck, by that law the show “Deadliest Catch” was probably illegal in a bunch of coastal states - I’m guessing the pots they use violate fishing laws if used in other states.

Apparently this one guy was the only person prosecuted under this law in the ten years since it was passed. So clearly this law was an extremely important tool against animal cruelty.

Gotta go with the majority on this one. When it comes to restricting speech, I want the law very finely narrowed.

Internet tough-guy-ism? It’s not much of a hobby - anyone can do it.

Given that assaults against humans “for enjoyment” are illegal pretty much everywhere, and that you are claiming that you have a desire to engage in illegal activity for your own enjoyment, your post is little more than an attempt to rile up other posters. We define that activity as trolling, hereabouts, and I encourage you to stop it, immediately.

[ /Moderating ]

So, that’s 2 of you who seem to think I was making a literal confession, and not just being hyperbolic to make a point.

Interesting. Should I open an ATMB thread and see what other members make of it, or do you want to reconsider your hasty conclusion?

***** Boxing and MMA, anyone? But at least the participants in those events choose to get involved.

Internet tough-guy-ism is hyperbolic by definition. I was never under the slightest impression you were threatening actual violence; I was ridiculing the empty strutting gesture, especially after you repeated it.

If I may speculate, though, tomndebb is tasked to protect the legal interests of the board and its sponsor. I seriously doubt he believes you were engaged in anything other than empty posturing, but he has a responsibility to cut short anything that might (however remotely) create problems.

I can’t speak for tom, of course; I can only suggest you assume by default that I’m not impressed by boastful claims of righteous anger.

And again you miss the point and focus instead on your impression of what sort of person you think I am.

I found that really interesting. I have more confidence in the court when they don’t always vote in blocs.

So, conservatives: was this ruling an example of judicial activism since the SC struck down a law passed by Congress?

Ummmm, if you say so. I was just correcting your assumption that I (and, I’m confident, tom) thought you were making a literal confession. If there’s some kind of meta-subtle-multilayer-symbolic-ironic meaning that I’m missing, so be it.

Meantime, my personal impression of you is actually pretty consistent, and has been for a few months now. But since this thread isn’t about you, I’ll leave it at that.

I cannot remember where I read it (so sorry, no cite) but the article mentioned that the squish videos (or whatever they are called where someone stomps on a kitten to provide some sexual gratification of the viewer) dried up almost overnight after the law was passed.

So, in that respect, it had a good effect.

No conservatives, not even Justice Thomas (by far the most conservative justice) doubt the Supreme Court’s right to strike down unconstitutional laws. Conservatives who decry “judicial activism” will usually contend that the court has improperly struck down a law on constitutional grounds when it could have resolved the issues involved without reaching the constitutional question. Or they might say that the court is flat-out creating constitutional rights out of whole cloth. But no one since Marbury has seriously doubted the principle of judicial review of Congressional action.