Religious Expression in the Supreme Court
Free the morning of November 6? Join the American Constitution Society (ACS) at the National Press Club (529 14th St. NW) at 9:30 a.m. in Washington, D.C., as they host a panel discussion about Pleasant Grove v. Summum , the only religious expression case before the high court this year. Dan Mach, Director of Litigation for the ACLU's Freedom of Religion and Belief Program, will be on the diverse panel of experts discussing the case, which will be heard by the Supreme Court on November 12. ACS says the case is "a dispute over a religious group’s request for a display of its religious messages, called “Seven Aphorisms,” in a Utah city park alongside a Ten Commandments monument."
Sounds like a fun morning, right?
Nov 4th, 2008 at 12:30am
"Woe to you lawyers who take away the key to knowledge. If you do not believe that I am he you will die in your sins" - Jesus
Nov 6th, 2008 at 9:05pm
Don't let him do it.
ACLU sux.
Apr 24th, 2009 at 9:29pm
Supreme Court agrees to hear case on dogfighting videos
April 25 2009 at 3:41 AM
No score for this post DOGMAN
Supreme Court agrees to hear case on dogfighting videos
By Jason Cato, TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
About the writer
Jason Cato can be reached via e-mail or at 412-325-4301.
Home Delivery
Subscribe to our publications
The Supreme Court announced Monday it will review a Pittsburgh case pitting dogfighting videos against free-speech rights.
In January 2005, Robert J. Stevens of Pittsville, Va., became the first person convicted under a federal law prohibiting the sale of materials depicting animal cruelty when a jury found him guilty in U.S. District Court, Downtown. Senior U.S. District Judge Alan N. Bloch sentenced Stevens to 37 months in prison.
In a 10-3 vote, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in July deemed the law to be an unconstitutional restriction on free speech and vacated Stevens' conviction.
The Department of Justice wants the conviction reinstated, which would require the Supreme Court for the first time in 27 years to declare an entire category of speech unprotected by the First Amendment. The high court ruled in 1982 that certain sexual depictions of children are not protected by free speech.
Oral arguments are expected in the court's next term, which begins in October.
The Justice Department declined to comment. Stevens' lawyer could not be reached. He is being represented by the federal public defender's office in Pittsburgh.
Congress in 1999 made it illegal "to create, sell or possess videos depicting animal cruelty with the intention of profiting financially from them." The primary reason behind the law was to ban "crush videos," which depict women in bare feet or wearing heels stomping on animals to inflict pain or death.
The federal law does not criminalize the act of animal cruelty -- which is addressed by state laws nationwide -- and allows exemptions for materials deemed to have "serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value."
Federal agents in Western Pennsylvania ordered three videos Stevens advertised in "Sporting Dog Journal," an underground dog-fighting magazine. Two of the videos include footage from the 1960s and '70s showing organized dog fights in the United States and Japan, a country where dog fighting is legal. The third video shows pit bulls used to hunt wild boar and includes footage of a dog mauling a farm pig.
Stevens argued in his appeal that the federal law was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because it criminalized depictions of conduct that was either legal or happened before dogfighting was outlawed, prosecuted people who did not take part in the underlying conduct or could be extended to hunting and fishing violations.
Justice Department lawyers said dog-fighting videos should be barred the same as child pornography, which is not protected by free-speech rights.
Bloch declined to comment on the Stevens case. He did not recall the Supreme Court taking a case he handled at the district level, where he became a judge in 1979. He said the Supreme Court once affirmed a decision he helped make while serving as a visiting judge on the 3rd Circuit.
Post new comment