The Supreme Court just handed animal abusers a big victory by striking down a federal law that made dogfighting and other animal cruelty videos illegal. The obvious question is: by what standard can child pornography can be illegal, while animal cruelty videos are OK?
[Chief Justice John Roberts] rejected the government’s analogy to a more recent category of unprotected speech, that of trafficking in child pornography, which the court in 1982 said deserved no First Amendment protection.
Child pornography, he said, is “a special case” because the market for it is “intrinsically related to the underlying abuse.”
And dogfighting videos aren’t intrinsically related to the underlying abuse? It’s not just that I disagree, I can’t even see how anyone could hold this point of view. Link.
