Oh, I need that aspirin bottle back, Ann...Cindy posted
Cindy, what point are you making? Is it that a lobbying group (SCI) is involved? I see in the re-worked bill the expressed exception to hunting videos, but I think that's due to the court using D.C. as a reason for striking the law down. The following is from the Bloomberg link you posted.
"Roberts faulted the law for criminalizing depictions of conduct that is illegal in only a single jurisdiction. He pointed to the ban on hunting in the District of Columbia."
In the abstract I can understand the statement, but in reality D.C. is an urban area where hunting would, of course, be illegal. Hunting is also illegal in my town...geez... It looks like they were trying to find something to hang their hat on to strike down the law.
I'm not sure if they're striking down the original law or only its application in the Stevens case. It seems like the new revision would replace the old one rather that just add to it for clarification.
I should just bow out of this one. My head is spinning
