President Obama Signs Crush Video Ban Law

December 13, 2010 -

President Barack Obama has signed into law a bill that outlaws the creation and distribution of so-called animal crush videos, a response to an April 20 Supreme Court decision (United States v. Stevens) that struck down an earlier federal law that banned a more broadly defined description of animal cruelty. The court was concerned that the law could be applied to hunting and fishing videos. The new law specifically addresses creating and distributing videos and ties it to obscenity - saying that these kinds of videos - involving burning, crushing and mutilating animals appeal to a particular sexual fetish. Why would the law say that? To tie the act to obscenity and make it an exception to the first amendment.

"This [new] law protects both animals and free speech by focusing specifically on crush videos, which clearly have no place in our society,” said Randall Lockwood of ASPCA.

Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the United States said, "We are thankful that countless animals will now be spared from intentional torture for sick entertainment and profit."

Why is this important to gamers? Because of the way the law was written to describe the videos as obscene and of a sexual nature. Lawmakers are getting savvy in the way they try to remove the first amendment protection of certain types of "free speech." Getting an exception seems to be the new way for these laws. Will this work for this federal law? We may have a clearer definition of what is obscene after the court rules on Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association, in which lawyers for California asked the court to treat violent video games like obscenity as they relate to minors.

Source: LAW.com


Comments

Re: President Obama Signs Crush Video Ban Law

Worst of all, this shows where Obama stands on digital media and the First Amendment. SCOTUS is still undecisive.

We are so screwed.

Re: President Obama Signs Crush Video Ban Law

As much as I dislike this law, I would not pin this on Obama...

Keep in mind, the president executes the laws, not writes them... vetos are rather rare events.

Re: President Obama Signs Crush Video Ban Law

I thought the SCOTUS said that it wasn't banned? Does this mean if video games are seen as free speech in the SCOTUS case they could still be outlawed in the future?

Re: President Obama Signs Crush Video Ban Law

It depends on specificly how SCOTUS rules.

In this case, SCOTUS struck down the law because they said it was too broad and could apply to good wholesome activities and not just those perverted sexual ones.  So the law had to be rewriten to only apply when sex is involved, but videos of killing and torturing anaimals are still ok as long as no one is naked.

Re: President Obama Signs Crush Video Ban Law

The Supreme Court found that the prior bill in its language was too broad and that it could censor videos that were not depicting cruelty to animals and thus was not Constitutional. They left the ruling open to allow for a more strictly defined law.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

Re: President Obama Signs Crush Video Ban Law

"We are thankful that countless animals will now be spared from intentional torture for sick entertainment and profit."

Uh, no they won't.

 

Don't existing animal cruelty laws already cover this sort of activity anyway?

Re: President Obama Signs Crush Video Ban Law

Yep, the activities are already illegal,.. this law, just like the kiddy porn ones, makes not only the crime illegal but videos of the crime illegal too.  It falls under the whole theory of 'more crimes will be committed if a demand for videos exists' idea.. which for some strange reason doesn't seem to apply to other crimes.

Last I checked, rape and snuff videos are still legal, but incredibly stupid to make since they provide admissible evidence that you committed a crime... (while snuff videos are urban legend, people HAVE video taped rapes before, and surprise surprise, they always come back to haunt the person).

For these general reasons... while I hate HATE HATE crush videos... this law makes me very uncomfortable and I think it continues a very bad precedent.

Re: President Obama Signs Crush Video Ban Law

so next time someone does the actual crime and a video is submitted as evidence, they can claim to have only used props and admit to only owning the video of it and get a lesser sentence? I'm confused

岩「if Phyllis Schlafly wants to undo Women's Rights, she should lead by example and get back in the kitchen」

岩「…I can see why Hasselbeck's worried about fake guns killing fake people. afterall, she's a fake journalist on a fake news channel」

Re: President Obama Signs Crush Video Ban Law

Is this not going against a ruling by the Supreme Court?  

Obviously, I' m not in favor of "crushing" or their videos, but seeing a politician making a bill that bans videos based exclusively on one type of content he doesn't approve of is unnerving.  Admittedly, this may not be too different from child pornography laws.  

However, seeing a new law signed like this begs the question: what if a president signs a similar law targeting videos of political protests?  It's a slippery slope.  And one without a clear-cut "correct" answer.

Re: President Obama Signs Crush Video Ban Law

Well, this loophole only applies to speech involving sex... so unless the political protests are naughty in some way the same legal technique could not easily be applied unless they bring back the Sedition act or something.

Re: President Obama Signs Crush Video Ban Law

It is not really going against the ruling. The ruling stated that the previous law in its language was unconstitutional. It did not bar congress from passing laws that are more strictly defined.

The Job of the Supreme court is to weigh current law and determine if it is constitutional. They are not given the power to create preemtively block future legislation except if that legislation is written in the same language as previously ruled on laws.

Of course this does not block Congress or the President from using prior Supreme Court rulings from writing and passing new laws with the goal of creating laws that are Constitutional. Which is what they are currently attempting.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

How do you usually divide up your Humble Bundle payments?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MaskedPixelantehttp://i5.minus.com/iN5o9iu1ON2NG.jpg "It cursed my gear? WHY WOULD IT DO THAT?! THIS GAME IS BUGGED!"04/24/2014 - 9:51pm
Matthew Wilsonthe lose of nn would not be good for us, but it will not be good for verizion/comcast/att in the long run ether.04/24/2014 - 2:16pm
Matthew Wilsonsadly yes. it would take another sopa day to achieve it.04/24/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoI am also confused. Are you saying NN would only become law if Google/Netflix pushed the issue (against their own interests)?04/24/2014 - 2:10pm
E. Zachary KnightMatthew, you are saying a lot of things but I am still unclear on your point. Are you saying that the loss of Net Neutrality will be good in the long run?04/24/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew WilsonOfcourse it does I never said it did not.though over time the death of NN will make backbone providers like Google, level3 and others stronger becouse most isps including the big ones can not provid internet without them. they can peer with smaller isps04/24/2014 - 1:54pm
E. Zachary KnightMatthew, and that still plays in Google's favor over their smaller rivals who don't have the muscle to stand up to ISPs.04/24/2014 - 1:45pm
Matthew Wilsongoogle wont pay becouse they control a large part of the backbone that all isps depend on. if verizon blocks their data, google does the same. the effect is Verizon loses access to 40% of the internet, and can not serve some areas at all.04/24/2014 - 1:14pm
Neenekolack of NN is in google and netflix interest. It is another tool for squeezing out smaller companies since they can afford to 'play'04/24/2014 - 12:57pm
Matthew WilsonI have said it before net nutrality will not be made in to law until Google or Netflix is blocked, or they do what they did for sopa and pull their sites down in protest.04/23/2014 - 8:02pm
Andrew EisenGee, I guess putting a former cable industry lobbyist as the Chairman of the FCC wasn't that great of an idea. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/technology/fcc-new-net-neutrality-rules.html?_r=204/23/2014 - 7:26pm
Andrew EisenIanC - I assume what he's getting at is the fact that once PS3/360 development ceases, there will be no more "For Everything But Wii U" games.04/23/2014 - 5:49pm
Andrew EisenMatthew - Yes, obviously developers will eventually move on from the PS3 and 360 but the phrase will continue to mean exactly what it means.04/23/2014 - 5:45pm
IanCAnd how does that equal his annoying phrase being meaningless?04/23/2014 - 5:09pm
Matthew Wilson@Andrew Eisen the phrase everything but wiiu will be meaningless afer this year becouse devs will drop 360/ps3 support.04/23/2014 - 4:43pm
Andrew EisenFor Everything But... 360? Huh, not many games can claim that title. Only three others that I know of.04/23/2014 - 3:45pm
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/04/23/another-world-rated-for-current-consoles-handhelds-in-germany/ Another World fulfills legal obligations of being on every gaming system under the sun.04/23/2014 - 12:34pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/steam-gauge-do-strong-reviews-lead-to-stronger-sales-on-steam/?comments=1 Here is another data driven article using sales data from steam to figure out if reviews effect sales. It is stats heavy like the last one.04/23/2014 - 11:33am
Andrew EisenI love RPGs but I didn't much care for Tales of Symphonia. I didn't bother with its sequel.04/23/2014 - 11:21am
InfophileIt had great RPGs because MS wanted to use them to break into Japan. (Which had the side-effect of screwing NA PS3 owners out of Tales of Vesperia. No, I'm not bitter, why do you ask?)04/23/2014 - 10:52am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician