so why isn't child porno legal?

Every dog will have its day.IT’S LEGAL TO SELL ANIMAL TORTURE VIDEOS AGAIN! Do you “get off” by watching videos in which “women in high-heeled shoes step on small animals,” and kill the animals in this fashion? Or do you prefer to fap to pit bulls tearing each other apart in dog-fight videos? Either way, America’s Supreme Court is furiously masturbating with you today, 8-1, you sick twerp. Why does Sam Alito (!) hate your American rights to watch helpless animals tortured for your repulsive amoral fetish? [Reuters]

Related

 
Related video

About the author

A writer and editor of this website from 2006 to early 2012, Ken Layne is occassionally seen on Twitter and writes small books and is already haunting you from beyond (your) grave.

View all articles by Ken Layne

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.

0 comments

  1. Escape Goat Nation

    Other than, “Day Of The Animals”, Lynda Day George’s finest roll was in, “The Littlest Hobo.”

  2. JMP

    In other news, shares of Japanese film-making companies skyrocketed today.

    [re=560195]Buzz Feedback[/re]: Now that was a fetish I hadn’t heard of. Rule 34 strikes again.

  3. Lazy Media

    Sounds like they could make it constitutional if they narrowed the law to the actual problem (crush videos, dog-fighting videos). But then some sicko might get their rocks off to a NEW kind of sick animal cruelty NOT proscribed, and the republic would be rocked to its foundations. Legislators are retarded.

  4. SayItWithWookies

    Okay, the law was too broad — so why the hell can’t Congress, which presumably has experience and damn well ought to know which laws are going to get through judicial review and which aren’t, able to write a sensible law that bans only what they want banned?
    Oh, right — because they’re prone to being whipped up like a possel of biddies hearing an urban legend at a Sunday potluck dinner and come up with genius legislation like that piece of shit law banning funding for ACORN over a few minutes of heavily-edited video. Keep voting, Bachmann fans.

  5. magic titty

    [re=560204]Red Zeppelin[/re]: Probably.

    But, umm…

    Who is arguing for the right to sell these movies?
    Who is watching them?
    Who is starring in them?
    Why is the Supreme Court deliberating over this?
    What the fuck is going on here exactly?

    …I will be putting on the Nick Drake and crying for the next few hours…

  6. Jim89048

    The Supremes do this shit on purpose, don’t they? It’s illegal to mistreat animals unless it’s for your cinematic arts project in your homeschole curriculum?

  7. Come here a minute

    Why was this crammed down our throats now? To get it done in time for the video release of Avatar, that’s why!

  8. queeraselvis v 2.0

    [re=560218]magic titty[/re]: The answer would be this waste of fertilized ovum:

    The ruling was a victory for Robert Stevens of Virginia, who made and sold three videos of pit bulls fighting each other and attacking hogs and wild boars.

    Scumbags like this are the reason why abortion should be mandatory for some folks.

  9. ttommyunger

    Thank God for Scalia and Company! Just a matter of time now until Netflix will be providing my daily ration of Kiddie Porn and Snuff Films. What a Country!

  10. SlouchingTowardsWasilla

    [re=560218]magic titty[/re]: Some men get off watching women in high heels step on small animals, killing them. No, I can’t explain this.

    Where there is a demand, someone will supply it because of freedom.

    However, some states made it a crime to sell this art and a man was convicted of this crime. He appealed his conviction claiming the law was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed saying the law was too broad because it made documentary videos illegal. Our hero, Sam Alito, disagreed, but he was the lone dissenter.

    World gone mad. The end.

  11. JMP

    [re=560219]Jim89048[/re]: It’s still illegal, under animal cruelty laws, to do this shit; what this struck down was extra penalties for recording it (and presumably laws against watching them). The defendant here had his sentence changed from 37 to 23 months in prison.

  12. arewethereyet

    i can’t quite get over the vote 8-1….8-1….and alito was the lone dissent? 8-1…wtf?

  13. Oblios Cap

    Do Teabaggers qualify as humans? Because we could film a plethora of rip-offs of “The Dealiest Game” using them as prey and make ourselves a humongous fortune.

    Great tags = “suck to be you hamsters” is an instant classic.

  14. Sweet Baby Cheeses

    Don’t hunting videos fall under this as well? I think this is the case, and if the gun people want it, the gun people will get it.

  15. geminisunmars

    [re=560244]JMP[/re]: I fervently hope he gets some help in re-enacting his movies during those 23 months. He gets to play the boar.
    (never thought I’d be on the same side as Alito, or pro-censorship, for that matter.)

  16. freakishlystrong

    The fact that the SCOTUS had to even vote on this perversion screams volumes about this fucked up country.

  17. GoinGreen

    [re=560251]Sweet Baby Cheeses[/re]: FUCK!! If this law would have held up, I possibly could have had twenty channels of toothless fucking idiots shooting shit removed from the bottom of my lineup on Direct TV! GODDAMN YOU, LIBERAL Supreme Court!

  18. Lazy Media

    [re=560239]SlouchingTowardsWasilla[/re]: It wasn’t a state law that was struck down; it was a federal law. This stuff is still illegal in most states.

  19. magic titty

    [re=560237]queeraselvis v 2.0[/re]: Of course he’s from Virgina. Of course.

    [re=560239]SlouchingTowardsWasilla[/re]: Is the small animal a metaphor for their penises? What is the turn on? Good god.

    For the first time, Sam Alito and I are saying “Jesus H. Christ” at the same time.

  20. JMP

    [re=560253]geminisunmars[/re]: I’ll have to disagree; the law was unconstitutionally vague, in my opinion, and it’s not akin to child pornography where the underlying creation is so damaging it justifies the criminalization of possession of recordings, despite the First Amendment.

    [re=560264]GoinGreen[/re]: That was actually pointed out in the opinion; that the law technically makes hunting videos illegal.

  21. Chuckie Jesus

    Down by the public library, there were these ne’er do well kids that looked like crustypunks of the hobo persuasion, but had managed to get a van and some Animal Rights literature. They also had a big television screen with some truly horrific shit being shown on it. I remember they wouldn’t go away until somebody gave them “enough money”. An angry guy with a little crying girl gave them a loogie’d on $50 and told ‘em scram. They did.

    I imagine that this freedom of speech is there to protect the grifters as well as the real animal rights activists.

    Oh, and you broke my heart Wonkette, for reminding me of that poor cat and the lady with the high heels. WTF is wrong with people. The end.

  22. Gorillionaire

    In my town, some thug got mad at his pitbull and set her on fire. She got away from him and survived by hiding for two weeks in a city park before someone found her and took her in. The thug got a harsher punishment for setting his couch on fire in the incident than he did for torturing the dog.
    I have nothing snarky to say. This shit is just too depressing. Make up your own dick joke here please.

  23. geminisunmars

    [re=560281]JMP[/re]: Hey, it’s my constitutional rights to freedoms of the speeches and my potential as a future teabagger to have a visceral reaction to such cruelty/sickness/filth/scum. Vague-smague! I say stiletto-heel them mofos.

  24. user-of-owls

    [re=560247]arewethereyet[/re]: [re=560278]magic titty[/re]:

    Easy to explain the lone dissent. Alito was raised by wild hogs.

  25. TGY

    Ken’s just trying to yank your chain, as is standard operating procedure. Best to read the law in question.

  26. GoinGreen

    [re=560281]JMP[/re]: I must say that I still hold my position of having never agreed with Alito on issues of broad policy (since I don’t read EVERY SCOTUS decision, I have no opinion or knowledge of most of his day-to-day opinions – so I can’t flatly state I never agree with him). We cannot legislate by the queezy feeling in the pit of our collective stomach. If that becomes the criteria, things like interracial porn and MSNBC would be deemed illegal in 34 states. It is quite the fucked up world, when you must defend someone who watches puppies geting stomped so you can continue to watch Blackzilla or Rachel Maddow!

  27. bago

    [re=560300]user-of-owls[/re]: Go figure that a user of owls would question the dissent. The REAL question involves Naked Bunny With A Whip.

  28. Neilist

    Neilist, J., concurring:

    As a First Amendment Absolutist (and a lawyer), I agree with the ruling of the Court.

    As a 2nd Amendment Absolutist (and black belt (3 different styles), however, I also agree with the idea of either Shooting Or Kicking The Living Shit Out Of These Assholes, as intended by the Framers.

    Respectfully submitted.

  29. Manos: Hands of Fate

    So if Michael Vick had put his dog fights on film, he’s still be in Atlanta? Is that what SCOTUS is saying?

  30. Lascauxcaveman

    Those of you trying to suppress your outrage, it seems the Supremes struck down the law as being too broad/vague, not because they love to torture puppies. Happens all the time when legislatures are to effing stupid to write good laws.

  31. whiterabid

    “While the prohibition of animal cruelty has a long history in American law, there is no evidence of a similar tradition prohibiting depictions of such cruelty, Roberts said.”

    I guess all those Matthew Brady photos of Civil War dead and coffins coming back from the Viet Nam War could be banned if this law were to stand. Unless man is not an animal. I guess that is debatable. Maybe.

  32. Lionel Hutz Esq.

    Given the porn that is corporate interference with the election process is OK, there is no way they could strike down something like this.

    Things are going to be interesting between Alito and Thomas now. Can you say douche chill!

    [re=560216]SayItWithWookies[/re]: Remember when this was passed. 1999. Given the freak out that full Republican control of Congress, half of the GOP really did want to outlaw all porn, while half wanted to make sure it was struck down so that they could still get their favorite porn.

    In other words, normal, Republican government.

    [re=560320]Lascauxcaveman[/re]: See above. Also, I thought that their decisions proved that they loved themselves some abortion.

  33. Lionel Hutz Esq.

    [re=560278]magic titty[/re]: Just when Florida and South Carolina were getting all uppity, Virgina steps in to show them how it is done.

    You can discriminate against teh geys, but you can have my dog fight video when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

  34. Manos: Hands of Fate

    [re=560320]Lascauxcaveman[/re]: Tell me you can look a Scalia and say that this is a man who doesn’t hate puppies.

  35. Extemporanus

    [re=560320]Lascauxcaveman[/re]: I in no way condone the torturing of puppies. However, I do strongly feel that having the ability to subject puppies to a variety of harsh interrogation methods is vitally important to our national security.

    [re=560370]anonymousryan[/re]: They don’t call him “The Dago Whisperer” for nothing!

  36. GrouchoEngels

    [re=560201]rambone[/re]: In a concurrence, Justice Thomas opined that Coke cans, pubic hairs, and female jurists constitute “animals”.