> but I fail to understand how showing dog fights enters into the realm of free speech...
I don't want to get too deep into this, 'cause it's way off topic. But, the issue here is not about protecting the video producers; it's about protecting speech generally.
It sure sounds as if the statute at issue is way, way too broad. As written, as the Justices pointed out in argument, it would prohibit many types of video that ordinarily would be socially acceptable. In fact, a video showing the evils of dog fighting, showing how horrible it is, likely would fall under statutory prohibition. So might videos about deer hunting, whaling or bull fighting. Journalistic reports about such things might also be prohibited, as the New York Times has posited. I could go on and on with hypotheticals here (as the Justices did), but you get the idea.
Oh, and by the way... some of the video was shot in Japan, where dog fighting is legal.
There might be ways to narrowly-tailor a statute that might pass Constitutional scrutiny. The drafters were sloppy.
It's very easy with emotionally-charged things like animal cruelty to get carried away. We must resist that temptation. Remember, guys... as broadcasters, the First Amendment is our stock-and-trade.
OK. Back to radio...
DE
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Actually thanks for the response DE. Female circumcision (mutilation) is legal and practiced in many places. Let's protect that as free speech too. I know, I know, but like I said, too many shades of gray. I don't think we disagree, it's just always a disappointment to me when someone presents a reason that something as disgusting as dog fighting videos should be protected and I get it. I get it, but I don't like it. The Constitution can sometimes be a pain in the pitard. No?
Now back to our regularly scheduled piousness.
