Crush Videos by Master Souled Out
Published on May 30, 2010 by The Truth Syndicate · 5 Comments
OK, SO I WAS ASKED BY THE TRUTH SYNDICATE TO WRITE AN ARTICLE ON CRUSH VIDEOS FROM DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES.
WHAT ARE CRUSH VIDEOS YOU MAY ASK? WELL,THEY SEEM TO BE A CERTAIN TYPE OF FETISH VIDEO,WHERE PEOPLE,MOSTLY WOMEN IN HIGH HEELS,STEP ON INVERTEBRATES & CRUSH THEM,MOSTLY IT SEEMS,FOR THE PLEASURE OF MEN.
SICK? IN MY OPINION,HELL YES! IN YOURS? THAT’S UP TO YOU.I WILL GET INTO MY VIEW LATER ON. FIRST THE U.S. GOVERNMENTS VIEW & RULING ON THE MATTER,AS FOLLOWS:
Supreme Court overturns anti-animal cruelty law in First Amendment case
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
The Supreme Court on Tuesday forcefully struck down a federal law aimed at banning depictions of dog fighting and other violence against animals, saying it violated constitutional guarantees of free speech and created a “criminal prohibition of alarming breadth.”
The 8 to 1 ruling, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., was a ringing endorsement of the First Amendment’s protection of even distasteful expression. Roberts called “startling and dangerous” the government’s argument that the value of certain categories of speech should be weighed against their societal costs when protecting free speech.
“The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh the costs,” Roberts wrote. “Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it.”
The decision was the second major First Amendment ruling of the term, and far more unified than the first. In January, a divided court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations and unions have a right to use their general treasuries and profits to spend freely on political ads for and against specific candidates.
Paul M. Smith, a Washington lawyer who had filed an amicus brief in the animal cruelty case on behalf of civil libertarians who opposed the law, called it “quite a strong decision” and said it was more evidence of a “court that is moving in the direction of strong enforcement of the First Amendment.”
The law was enacted in 1999 to forbid sales of so-called crush videos. They appeal to a certain sexual fetish by depicting the torture of animals — cats, dogs, monkeys, mice and hamsters, according to Congress — or showing them being crushed to death by women wearing stiletto heels or with their bare feet. While dog-fighting and other forms of animal cruelty are already illegal, Congress said the legislation was necessary to stop the production of videos for commercial gain.
But the government has not used the law to prosecute any producer of a crush video. Instead, the case before the court, United States v. Stevens, involves Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Va., who was sentenced to three years in prison for making videos of pit bulls fighting. An appeals court overturned the conviction when it ruled the law was unconstitutional.
Roberts’ opinion said the court was not passing judgment about whether a narrower statute limited just to crush videos and “other depictions of extreme animal cruelty” might be constitutional.
But the court said the legislation passed by Congress was far too broad. Anyone who “creates, sells or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty” for commercial gain can be imprisoned for up to five years. A depiction of cruelty was defined as one in which “a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed.”
Roberts wrote that the definition was so loose that it could include all depictions of wounding or killing animals, even hunting videos or magazines. He said the law’s exemption for works of “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value” was not enough protection, and the court was not reassured by the government’s argument that prosecutions were rare.
“We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the government promised to use it responsibly,” he wrote.
Besides, he added, when President Bill Clinton signed the measure into law, he said the Justice Department would limit prosecutions to “wanton cruelty to animals designed to appeal to a prurient interest in sex.” That was not the case in the Stevens prosecution.
The court has identified only certain categories of speech as outside the First Amendment’s protection: obscenity, fraud, incitement, defamation and speech integral to criminal conduct. The last time the court decided speech was so unredeeming it did not deserve such protection was 25 years ago, and the subject was child pornography.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. was the lone dissenter in Tuesday’s opinion.
He said the law was enacted “not to suppress speech, but to prevent horrific acts of animal cruelty.” He said that the entire law need not be found unconstitutional, and that the “practical effect” of the ruling would be to spur production of crush videos, which opponents such as the Humane Society of the United States said had decreased with passage of the 1999 law.
Humane Society President Wayne Pacelle said his organization was prepared for the court’s ruling given the tough questioning of justices at oral arguments last fall. “We’re hopeful that a more narrowly tailored law aimed at vicious and illegal acts of cruelty” would pass constitutional muster, he said, adding that work already is underway with supportive members of Congress.
David Horowitz, executive director of the Media Coalition, said in a statement that the court rightly decided that if the First Amendment were rewritten “every time an unpopular or distasteful subject was at issue, we wouldn’t have any free speech left.”
Horowitz — whose organization represents publishers, booksellers and producers, and retailers of movies, videos and video games — said that “animal cruelty is wrong and should be vigorously prosecuted, but as the court today found, sending people to prison for making videos is not the answer.”
OK,THAT’S OUR GOVERNMENT’S VIEW,THIS IS THE EXPLANATION OF THE FILMS,VIDEOS,I FOUND ON WIKIPEDIA,AS FOLLOWS:
films
Main article: Crush film
The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (March 2010)
Animal snuff films, known as crush films can be found on the Internet. These films depict instances of animal cruelty, and/or pornographic acts with animals, usually involving the crushing death of an animal, including insects, mice, rats, guinea pigs, hamsters, monkeys, birds, cats, and dogs. In 1999, the U.S. government banned the depiction of animal cruelty, however the law was overturned by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled that the category “depiction of animal cruelty” contained in the law was not an exception to First Amendment protections.[64] In an 8–1 decision handed down in April 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the lower court’s ruling, but on the grounds that the law was unconstitutionally broad. The case itself did not involve crush films, but rather, a video that in part depicted dogfighting.[65]
Legal status
There are currently no known laws forbidding the crushing of live invertebrates, although the production or trade of crush erotica involving vertebrates is condemned by opponents of animal cruelty, is illegal in many countries, including Great Britain, and has previously been banned in the United States.[6]
[edit] United States
In 1999, the United States Congress enacted a statute affecting the legality of crush films which criminalized the creation, sale, and possession of depictions of animal cruelty, though with an exception for “any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.”[7] In 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit invalidated the ban on the sale and possession of such films (if not otherwise obscene) as a violation of the Constitution’s guarantee for freedom of speech.[8] The United States Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit’s decision in United States v. Stevens, finding the law unconstitutional because the law was so broad and vague that it included any portrayal of an animal in or being harmed such as by hunting or disease
MY OPINION IS THIS: I WENT ON YOUTUBE & VIEWED A COUPLE OF THESE VIDEOS MYSELF. IT
MADE ME SICK. IT TRULY DID. I AM PRO ANIMAL RIGHTS, I CAN’T STAND THE THOUGHT OF ANY ANIMAL BEING TREATED THIS WAY. I FOUND IT WAS MOSTLY CRABS & CRAYFISH BEING CRUSHED,BUT THAT STILL DISGUSTS ME.
THEY WEREN’T BEING USED AS FOOD,JUST CRUSHED TO DEATH UNDER HIGH HEELS FOR SOMEONES SICK PLEASURE.
AND AS TO FETISHES,I AM A BDSM MASTER & HAVE FETISHES MYSELF. BUT….THEY DO NOT! I REPEAT…DO NOT! HARM ANOTHER LIVING CREATURE FOR MY ENJOYMENT & OR PLEASURE! I FIND THIS WHOLE THING PERVERSE.
MASTER SOULED OUT,
REPORTING FOR THE TRUTH SYNDICATE
As a footnote from The Truth Syndicate, we searched for pictures that would be alright to use for this article and there just wasn’t any, So we decided that posting of any applicable pics would just be furthering this disgusting act. If you really want to see them just google them and you will see some very troubling pics involving a kitten.
 |
|
Readers Comments (5)
I find the whole concept of Crush Videos unbearably sad. And to learn that the SCOTUS has deemed it to be protected speech… that’s just criminal. Let’s just hope that articles like this and others of like mind create enough of a stir that our voices can make a change… and advocate for the voiceless victims of this horrendous “fetish”.
Lets Get Together And Crush The Ones, That Partake!
I couldn’t agree more Mike humans have power over all living thing we as humans deserve to treat animals with the highest respect
I am co-founder for stopcrush.org and in case ye haven’t heard we won the victory Friday,the House and Senate has passed the Bill Hr 5566 and now waiting for Obama to sign it into law,since the passing of the Bill many Crush sites are being disabled.
Now our animals will be safe but the hard work has really yet to come,we will be going Global concentrating on Asia which the videos come out of!
Congratulations!
We posted your webpage on facebook-lorobolivia.
Pornography, Crush videos…caged birds…
Will keeping birds as pets be next????
We really hope so.
It is a similar evil, only the effect it has on us is subtle, almost irrecognizable, but nevertheless powerful.
It twists the mind like pornography does.