Here's the text of the original law that was struck down by the Supreme Court.
*************************************
In 1999, Public Law 106-152 (Title 18, Section 48) was enacted. This Federal legislation makes it a felony to create, sell, or possess videos depicting animal cruelty with the intention of profiting financially from them.
18 USC 48 / PUBLIC LAW 106-152
Sec. 48. - Depiction of animal cruelty
(a) Creation, Sale, or Possession.
Whoever knowingly creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) Exception.
Subsection (a) does not apply to any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.
(c) Definitions.
In this section
(1) the term ''depiction of animal cruelty'' means any visual or auditory depiction, including any photograph, motion-picture film, video recording, electronic image, or sound recording of conduct in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed, if such conduct is illegal under Federal law or the law of the State in which the creation, sale, or possession takes place, regardless of whether the maiming, mutilation, torture, wounding, or killing took place in the State; and
(2) the term ''State'' means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States
Read more: Pet-Abuse.Com - Stopping Crush Videos
Pet-Abuse.Com - Stopping Crush Videos
**********************************
I honestly don't see what was wrong with the original law. In my reading, it made illegal the recording of activities that was already illegal. It didn't break any new ground in making something previously legal thus illegal under the law....only to extend to recording that activity for commercial gain.
I suppose I could see why the new bill is worded the way it is since Justice Roberts suggested a law limited to crush video may hold up. Maybe I'm more against the Court's ruling and the fact that laws have to be worded to satisfy their odd sense of constitutionality. There are other forms of animal cruelty beyond crush videos that are already illegal. Do legislators now have to write a separate law for each specific type to satisfy the court?
Pass the aspirin my way. Now
I've got a headache!