article thumbnail

From Today's New York Times

Animal Ethics

6): I do not agree that “anyone with an appreciation for the First Amendment” must conclude that “crush videos” or videos of vicious dogfights are protected speech and that the federal law in question should therefore be struck down. Only a very narrow range of activities come under the sweep of this law, and all of them are illegal.

article thumbnail

From Today's New York Times

Animal Ethics

To the Editor: Re “ Disgusting but Not Illegal ” (editorial, Aug. Stevens , the Supreme Court last year overturned a 1999 law banning depictions of animal cruelty on the grounds of overbreadth. The justices were legitimately concerned that the law could impede valid speech. In United States v.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Recent Events Involving Our Public Lands Are Alarming

10,000 Birds

In case you missed the latest news cycle, the seven armed antigovernment protesters thugs pictured above were acquitted last Thursday of federal conspiracy and weapons charges stemming from that takeover of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge last winter. It’s about putting the Federal Government back into the confines of the law.”.

Extremist 162
article thumbnail

From Today's New York Times

Animal Ethics

The California law adds an arbitrary and unscientific requirement that chickens be prohibited from touching one another or the side of any enclosure. The new law will cost American family farmers, and ultimately California consumers, hundreds of millions of dollars.