Supreme Court Debates Crush Videos (can gov't outlaw "Human Sacrifice Channel"?)

[sabra]

Source: Chicago Trib

Washington - Could the government outlaw a future "Human Sacrifice Channel" on cable TV?

That question became the focus of a Supreme Court argument today on the reach of the 1st Amendment and on whether Congress can outlaw videos showing dogs fighting or other small animals being tortured and killed.

...

Justice Antonin Scalia, an avid hunter, insisted the 1st Amendment does not allow the government to limit speech and expression, unless it involves sex or obscenity.

"It's not up the government to tell us what are our worst instincts," said Justice Antonin Scalia. He repeatedly cited German dictator Adolf Hitler and his policies of extermination. "Can you keep him off the screen?," Scalia asked, just because his deeds were vile.

...

Alito said there may well be a "pay per view" market for programs made outside the United States, so there would be no criminal jurisdiction here, that showed real persons being killed. He called it the "Human Sacrifice Channel" and wondered aloud whether Congress could outlaw the showing of such programs in this country. What about "snuff films," asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Read more: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-dc-court-crush-videos,0,485757.story

[Taverner]

1. They're going about this all wrong

Yes, it should be constitutionally protected to air ANYTHING AND EVERYTYHING. Even a snuff channel. HOWEVER, charge anyone who watches, pays for, films and/or profits from this as an accessory to murder.

[Fresh_Start]

5. while I don't agree everything should be protected

I do agree with the charge of murder or accessory to murder for those who make, profit from or buy those things

[Taverner]

14. And that should be the way they prosecute Child Porn

That way, the 1st Amendment is not compromised, but there is still justice

[The Stranger]

13. Expansion of the scope of the Son of Sam laws would not be unconstitutional.

Same kind of thing.

[roguevalley]

28. this shit is sick and I think lumping this as free speech actually

undermines the argument against snuff videos and the like. May the sick fucks who make these and their enablers who buy them die a terrible lingering death.

[Taverner]

31. But what are you angry with? It's the ACTION, not the speech

So punish the ACTION

And there are plenty of laws to do so

[Duppers]

50. how the fuck do we punish the action if these sick films are made

say in Mexico???

Why the fuck not be angry. This is sick, sick, sick.

[Treo]

2. What about the "Faces of Death" movies? NT

[spiritual_gunfighter]

3. The early Faces Of Death movies were fakes.

The more recent ones are real though, I always wondered how legal they were.

[Wizard777]

20. No they weren't. They showed very real deaths and even executions.

[Treo]

22. Faces of Death

I think they may have been a mixture of real footage and "reenactments" but one real death would suffice for the purpose of this discussion.

[Wizard777]

24. Not that I'm aware of and I have seen the series several times.

[Codeine]

35. The guy that did the makeup for the film

has acknowledged that about half of what you see is fake. Hell, it was obvious to us when it saw it back when we were sixteen that is had fake shit in it.

Here's a piece from the AMC website about it.

http://blogs.amctv.com/monsterfest/2008/05/makeup-artist-a.php

[spiritual_gunfighter]

27. Yes they were

there was a documentary made in the early 90s featuring Bill Burrund the guy that ran Gorgon Video who produced the videos and aside from some film footage of air disasters and a couple of other things you could very easily see on television at the time, he had to admit they were all faked for the movies. Go back and watch some of them now, they are laughable in how staged they are.

[Treo]

29. Ok let's use this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fAhzK8ABlY

Karl Wallenda Death Report

It's known to be actual footage of a man dying would it fall under SCOTUS scrutiny?

[spiritual_gunfighter]

49. I said in my previous post that there are clips in the Faces Of Death movies

that is actual death footage. I also said they are all clips that you would see on news at that time, case in point.

[npk]

47. Traces of Death was the one that was real. Faces of death was a mock version

Traces of Death was a compilation of real accidents, murders, and just general horrible stuff caught on tape. It was very briefly sold in the US before it was taken off the market. Several law suits from family members of those person's killed contributed to the demise of the studio that released it. There may be a few videos still floating around auction sites. But it is no longer distributed.

[Wizard777]

17. I was thinking the same thing.

But those were assembled to be used to desensitize coroners, rescue workers and others that encounter death in a professional capacity. Some how they made their way into the public domain.

[KansDem]

4. Man, am I behind the times! I thought "crush" meant "puppy love"

I wondered "Why should the Supreme Court be concerned about 'first-love' videos?"

on edit: Like we're going to see a lot of blushing and hear a lot of stammering...

[sinkingfeeling]

6. Psst, Tony, torturing and killing living things are obscene.

[MineralMan]

8. Really...?

Both are obscene? Or is just the combination obscene? You're not very clear, there. If both are obscene, then we'll all have to become vegetarians, won't we?

[sinkingfeeling]

15. Yes, both are obscene when done as entertainment. Just like we don't say that all sexual acts are

obscene unless they're committed in a way that offends the community standards. Killing animals for food can be done in such a way as to be humane.

[Duppers]

51. I agree

But....err....isn't hunting entertainment.

:shrug:




Sorry to interject an entirely different subject. Yep, you can guess where I stand on that kind of "entertainment".

[Voice for Peace]

9. thanks, my thought exactly. nt

[Wizard777]

25. So the CIA was justified in destroying their videos of their tortures?

Of course I'll have to ask the obvious that SCOTUS avoids like the plague. Define "Obscene."

[sinkingfeeling]

32. I don't know what the CIA destroying torture videos has to do with this. But, I believe that the

current definition set by the SCOTUS in Miller vs. California, which deals only with sexual acts, needs updating. I will quote from this blog on civil liberties: http://civilliberty.about.com/b/2009/10/05/if-animal-cruelty-isnt-obscene-what-is.htm

The Supreme Court's definition of obscenity has conventionally been limited to content of a sexual matter, while violent content, even violent content intended to appeal to twisted sexual impulses, has not historically been regarded as obscene. But the word "obscene" has to do with the way material is perceived, not sexual content; it comes from the Latin root obscaenus, meaning "ill-omened." And the Supreme Court has historically held that obscene content is not protected speech.

The current definition of obscenity, taken from Miller v. California (1972), holds that material that is not of a sexual nature cannot, by definition, be considered obscene--that violent content such as animal torture videos, for example, cannot be considered obscene even if it is created to appeal to a prurient interest. The Miller standard reads as follows:

The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

[Wizard777]

40. But Obscenity is outlawed by most if not all states.

So it comes under criminal speech in that sense.

[NYC Liberal]

7. Wait, "sex and obscenity" can be banned but not killing?

Huh?

[Wizard777]

23. Alito is off his rocker. As usual. Only if it forms criminal speech.

Criminal speech is the only form of speech and expression that is not protect by the first amendment.

[myrna minx]

10. In all my years here, I never thought I'd see a "Videodrome" thread in LBN.

Strange days indeed. :-(

[proteus_lives]

16. Embrace the new flesh.

[myrna minx]

56. Awkward laughter

in response to proteus_lives. :rofl:

[Tumbulu]

11. How horrible that some people enjoy seeing anyone suffer or be killed

animal or human. I spend my life trying to care for animals and the people in my community and life. How could anyone enjoy watching poor little dogs be killed by people in high heeled shoes? Can this be real?

Outlaw every violent video. This uncivilized behavior needs to be discouraged, not encouraged by society. And just get all the creeps who think this is fun to watch to care for animals in shelters and perhaps cows, horses, pigs and chickens. Perhaps if they spend enough time with animals they will become human instead of monsters.

And put every one who is involved in production and sale of these horrors in jail as the criminals that they are, period.

Why is this even being debated?

[Xithras]

18. There are tons of violent video sites on the internet.

NothingToxic (NSFW) is one of the oldest, and has tons of gory videos. Nothing faked, but real videos of awful crap happening to people. I believe their top story right now is a guy who's bungee cord snapped while diving. Other sites, like LiveLeak, specialize in publishing news and information that other sites can't or won't carry. This often involves videos where people die.

The question is, how do you ban one activity without the other? How do you pass laws prohibiting the creation of snuff videos (where murder is usually faked), while allowing the real thing to be published? How can you ban the real thing, without stepping on peoples rights to view and publish information about actual events that really happened?

This isn't just a slippery slope, it's a vaseline covered cliff. There is no way to ban these things without infringing on real freedom of the press and speech rights.

[Duppers]

52. That's why we have courts. To paraphrase a quote..

I cannot define the difference between violence-porn and documentary film, but I know it when I see it.



This is yet another case where the libertarian shit hits the fan.

[Duppers]

53. Legit Movies made in this country have animal rights activists on set

According to your criteria, it's okay for someone to call for a political assassination on the net as a free speech issue. Or yell fire in a crowded auditorium.


Vaseline cliff, my ass. We have laws for a reason.

Isn't there a libertarianunderground.com somewhere you can post at?

[nebenaube]

37. I can see the shelters but..

The farm animals you mention are only raised for slaughter.

[Tumbulu]

57. chickens lay eggs, cows, sheep and goats produce milk

all can be used to make meat, but all require a lot of care prior to any product produced and it should all be done humanely or not at all.

Animals domesticated us and made us humans, beginning with dogs and then the list goes on chickens, sheep, goats, horses, pigs, cows, cats.... imho we need them, they need us.

[jus_the_facts]

12. "Human Sacrifice Channel" That's the most fucked up idea I've ever heard....

:wtf:

[Wizard777]

21. I've actually debated human sacrifice and the first amendment before.

It's not as outrageous as you would think or as Roberts is trying to present it as. It all comes down to the issue of consent.

[Selatius]

45. George Carlin joked about a Suicide Channel years before this. He was ahead of the curve

The guy understood Americans more than they understand themselves.

[Wizard777]

19. I'll go there! Yes it would be unconstitutional for Congress to prohibit the Human Sacrifice Channel

"Sacrifice" is a religious ritual. So Congress would actually be making a law concerning an establish of religion and also prohibiting the free exercise thereof. On top of that they would also be infringing or abridging the freedom of speech and press needed to share that religious ritual with others.

[Duppers]

54. That kind of "religious" freedom should be illegal.

You don't have the right to kill people period. I don't think the writers of the Constitution would agree with you in this case.

We have courts for a reason, for reasonable minds to debate ambiguous concepts. Alito and Scalia are not reasonable minds, at least not considered so by most members of this forum.



Okay, go on your tangent now picking apart my statement "to kill people" and argue for war and capital punishment. Yada, yada, yada.

[Wizard777]

60. So you are aware of the argument. Yes you do have the right to kill people.

Here in the State of Maryland if you present an immediate and credible threat to my life or limb. I have the right to kill you.

As far as SCOTUS and their tests go. The First Amendment protection of religion and it's free exercise is the only right that compels Congress to "make no law." So there should be "no law" to apply a compelling interest test to.

[Duppers]

62. Upholding the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law

Self-defense is a recognizable law, a given, every where I know of.

You value the letter of the law above its spirit. Your shine is the literal interpretation of the words of the law. But I seriously doubt that was the intent of those who wrote the laws.


You're the type of person who would read an article and remark upon word choices and grammatical errors before commenting on content.

I'm wondering what type of law you practice? Criminal defense?

Divorced much?

[Wizard777]

64. I tend to believe that the letter of the law and the spirit of the law are the same.

It is people trying to pervert the law to achieve something the law wasn't intended to do that believe they are different. Like thinking that the first amendment allows the government to say what is and is not religion and what exercises of religion are and are not allowed.

But I do admit that I have problems with discriminant though process. People having disagreements say, you're talking apples and oranges. To me that is an analogy. Both are fruit that grow on a tree. The closest I've ever come to understanding that is that apples and oranges could be a bad analogy for a bad analogy. But even that is an analogy.

Now when you talk about the spirit of the law or anything else. Now you are firmly upon my ground. I'm not a lawyer. I'm a priest. I see the letter. I see what's in the letter. I see what is beyond the letter. Frankly the vulgate is favorite part of any language. It's usually far from grammatically correct. So no I'm not a Grammar Nazi. I'm more concerned with communicating. Good grammar is not always conducive to that.

Do you really think our forefathers weren't aware of all the human sacrifices made in Christianity? From Christ to the martyred Saints. They all sacrificed their lives for their faith and beliefs. Granted not typical human sacrifices in the horror movie sense. But human sacrifices none the less. Any law prohibiting human sacrifice could also be used to prevent the sacrifices of Saints and Prophets yet to come. I just don't ever buy into the our poor stupid forefathers arguments. They were some of the most brilliant and profound men to ever live. The US Constitution is testament to that. I don't think it's ever a case them not understanding our modern day problems. I think it's more a matter of us not understanding that the mean they used to solve their modern day problems set forth in the US Constitution can also be used to solve our modern day problems. The onus is not upon them to understand our problems. The onus is upon us to understand their solutions.

[Duppers]

65. Where did I say I think the forefathers of our country are stupid????

You wrote: "I just don't ever buy into the our poor stupid forefathers arguments. They were some of the most brilliant and profound men to ever live. The US Constitution is testament to that. I don't think it's ever a case them not understanding our modern day problems"

Me? Think they were stupid???? Au contraire. I too think our forefathers are brilliant. However, if you think they foresaw and were able to predict all the problems in our modern society, I think you are wrong.

There are a few other breaches of logic in this post; however, I do not now have the time to address them. Wait, please, and I shall.

[Wizard777]

67. No you didn't say it. But you seemed to be approaching from that direction.

I just wanted to let you know the bridge was out and that's a dead end road before you got there. I'm glad to hear you agree. There are a lot of things you can say our forefathers didn't envision or intend. Like women voting or even a slave that should be in chains sitting in the White House running the country and doing it quite well I'll add to that.Our fore fathers did not perfect the union. They just did their very best to create a more perfect union as set forth in the preamble. With each successive generation also doing their very best to create that more perfect union. We come closer and closer to making our forefathers dream and vision a reality. When they said, "a more perfect union." I believe all perceivable inferences of that to be true and usable. A more perfect union between the people, the states, and our great Nation and other countries. But that's not where that ends. We must also create a more perfect union between the spirit and letter of our law. So once again the onus is upon us. Our patrons from the past have already told us what they want and expect. Now it's up to us to create that great work for them and our progeny.

[Duppers]

63. "PEACEABLY to assemble" could be applied to challenge a sacrifice

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That "peaceably to assemble" phrase MAY NOT APPLY to the victim of a sacrifice.



"During the late 1980's, a series of rulings by the US Supreme Court upheld the right of governments to restrict religious freedom, as long as the limitations applied equally to all faiths. A series of laws at the federal and state level were initiated, in an effort to limit such restrictions. They have all run into constitutional problems because they attempt to grant special religious freedoms to individuals and organizations that are not available to Agnostics, Atheists, and other secularists and their groups. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires that a wall of separation be maintained between church and state. Any law that gives special privileges to religious people and groups is clearly unconstitutional."

[Renew Deal]

26. Limiting only "sex or obscenity" seems pretty arbitrary.

:shrug:

[onenote]

42. I'm curious as to where strict constructionist scalia finds the sex and obscenity limitation

He's likes to hunt, so he thinks films showing animals being killed are okay.

Well, I like to fuck, so why should there be limits on films showing people fucking?

[Duppers]

55. Exactly, onenote. nt.

nt

[mbperrin]

30. I'm for a "Human" Sacrifice Channel if I get to name the participants!

First up, producers of "Reality" shows!

Next, authors of legal memos saying torture is legal!

Then....

[greiner3]

34. "Then...."

republicans?!

[RedCloud]

36. Then the birthers to those hungry Hawaiian volcanoes.

We must sacrifice the whole lot of them. For their own good too.

[mbperrin]

48. Certainly for their own good! It'll hurt us more than it hurts them, but

it's our DUTY!

[Mz Pip]

33. Maybe these two things are apples and oranges

but I have a hard time reconciling the idea that conservatives seem to think these films are okay but go all psycho over the thought that a doctor should be able tell patients about the kind of end of life care that is available to them.

[Gman2]

38. Get ready for BREAD and CIRCUSES, let the games begin.

Silly olympics.

[Gman2]

39. And how the fuck did they not allow the outside of a coffin shown?

[Selatius]

46. The nation's sense of community and civic pride has deteriorated. It may very well come to that.

Towards the end, Romans were too busy trying to survive in a top-heavy economy dominated by plutocrats in gigantic landed estates across the Roman countryside. They didn't care about Roman government or civics or any of that crap. They were reduced to simply wanting food and a place to sleep each night, and they didn't want to fight in wars started by rich people against other rich people.

Bread and circus was a form of escapism, sort of like how UFC and NASCAR and football is a form of escapism from the grinding life.

[Turbineguy]

41. Snuff TV

We should export that. Maybe we can get some people to blow up some more of our embassies.

[tomm2thumbs]

43. is Scalia a Hitler fanatic? quoting Hitler like that should be a measure of our courts /nt

[provis99]

58. nah, he's a Mussolini fanatic.

his dad was a member of the American-Italian Fascist Party, and swore an oath of allegiance to Benito Mussolini. Daddy passed the family love of fascists down to Antonin.

[MisterP]

44. if the Free State Project ever takes off, this CIVIC-TV will be the biggest employer and network in

New Hampshire: of course it'll be permitted, since if there's a demand for something, it ought to be legalized! did we mention Prohibition yet? Stalin and Hitler banned things! snuff TV will bring jobs! freedom! money! it's the only thing that matters!

[YoungAndOutraged]

59. Something's wrong with Scalia's statement

Justice Antonin Scalia, an avid hunter, insisted the 1st Amendment does not allow the government to limit speech and expression, unless it involves sex or obscenity.

"It's not up the government to tell us what are our worst instincts," said Justice Antonin Scalia. He repeatedly cited German dictator Adolf Hitler and his policies of extermination. "Can you keep him off the screen?," Scalia asked, just because his deeds were vile.

How can the government not tell us what our worst instincts are, if they can? He said it himself. Leaves me shaking my head. And on a different note, once again, "Killing? Oh sure, that's awwwwwwright. Just don't show one of them vaginers or whatever they're called. Those're evil."

[and-justice-for-all]

61. That is fucking appalling

"dogs fighting or other small animals being tortured and killed".

So when will executions be made available on PPV? Freedom of expression ya know!

[SOS]

66. The Supreme Court sides with business

If these movies make money for some lowlife skell, he'll win.

"There are no economic populists on the court, even on the liberal wing. And ever since John Roberts was appointed chief justice in 2005, the court has seemed only more receptive to business concerns. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce litigation center filed briefs in 15 cases and its side won in 13 of them — the highest percentage of victories in the center’s 30-year history."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16supreme-t.html