BTW I saw a BluRay of ‘Carrie’ the other day, the opening scene in the girls locker room is really sexy… you wouldn’t see it today… all you see is tits and triangles. yeah baby.
Lech, not that really. Like you have a greater awareness of it during the day. The hair is like an extra pair of undies – another barrier between your parts and the things they interact with.
The Washington Post WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck down a federal law Tuesday aimed at banning videos depicting graphic violence against animals, saying that it violates the constitutional right to free speech.
Chief Justice John J. Roberts Jr., writing for an eight-member majority, said the law was overly broad and not allowed by the First Amendment. He rejected the government’s argument that whether certain categories of speech deserve constitutional protection depends on balancing the value of the speech against its societal costs.
“The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits,” Roberts wrote. “The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it.”
The law was enacted in 1999 to forbid sales of so-called “crush videos,” which appeal to a certain sexual fetish by depicting the torture of animals or showing them being crushed to death by women with stiletto heels or their bare feet. But the government has not prosecuted such a case. Instead, the case before the court, United States v. Stevens, came from Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Va., who was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison for videos he made about pit bull fighting.
Animal rights groups and 26 states had joined the Obama administration in support of the 1999 law. They argued that videos showing animal cruelty should be treated like child pornography rather than granted constitutional protection.
But Roberts said the federal law was so broadly written that it could include all depictions of killing animals, even hunting videos. He said the court was not passing judgment about whether “a statute limited to crush videos or other depictions of extreme animal cruelty would be constitutional.”
Thanks JB. Well as they say at the end of a lot of South Park episodes, “I’ve learned something today….”
PLUG IT UP! PLUG IT UP! PLUG IT UP! that movie rocked.
*rob*
Agree with L on raunch hour… wtf.
BTW I saw a BluRay of ‘Carrie’ the other day, the opening scene in the girls locker room is really sexy… you wouldn’t see it today… all you see is tits and triangles. yeah baby.
Lech, not that really. Like you have a greater awareness of it during the day. The hair is like an extra pair of undies – another barrier between your parts and the things they interact with.
quote:
crush movies are movies where someone gets off on seeing women crush small animals with their feet.
are there any involving peacocks? i’d buy it!!! i love horror movies and happy endings!
*rob*
Denton and Ty, that’s pretty cool. Never knew that. My downstairs neighbor is a retired Cooper Union professor.
The Washington Post WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck down a federal law Tuesday aimed at banning videos depicting graphic violence against animals, saying that it violates the constitutional right to free speech.
Chief Justice John J. Roberts Jr., writing for an eight-member majority, said the law was overly broad and not allowed by the First Amendment. He rejected the government’s argument that whether certain categories of speech deserve constitutional protection depends on balancing the value of the speech against its societal costs.
“The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits,” Roberts wrote. “The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it.”
The law was enacted in 1999 to forbid sales of so-called “crush videos,” which appeal to a certain sexual fetish by depicting the torture of animals or showing them being crushed to death by women with stiletto heels or their bare feet. But the government has not prosecuted such a case. Instead, the case before the court, United States v. Stevens, came from Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Va., who was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison for videos he made about pit bull fighting.
Animal rights groups and 26 states had joined the Obama administration in support of the 1999 law. They argued that videos showing animal cruelty should be treated like child pornography rather than granted constitutional protection.
But Roberts said the federal law was so broadly written that it could include all depictions of killing animals, even hunting videos. He said the court was not passing judgment about whether “a statute limited to crush videos or other depictions of extreme animal cruelty would be constitutional.”
Tyburg, nice, but CU also owns the Chrysler Building, not just the land. I believe they recently concluded a 150 year lease with Tishman.
Their new building at 41 Cooper Square has a lot of interesting green technologies.
maybe they are just trying to make it harder for themselves to catch crabs?
*rob*