Free Markets, Free People


SCOTUS strikes down ban on animal cruelty videos

And it wasn’t even close – 8-1.  The court finding is based in the First Amendment right of free speech.

So – who do you suppose the lone dissenter was?  I would almost bet you won’t guess correctly.  I didn’t.

Anyway, the court found that the law was overly broad and while aimed at outlawing some dispicable videos known as “crush videos” (as an aside, when you read what a crush video is, you will indeed understand that there are some very sick people in this world).  However, the law could also be used to prosecute hunting videos as well. 

The government had argued that “certain categories of speech deserve constitutional protection depends on balancing the value of the speech against its societal costs”.

Writing for the majority Chief Justice John Roberts explains why the court rejected that argument:

“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.”

Or said another way, the court refused to allow the government to institute arbitrary or “ad hoc” standards that “balance relative social costs and benefits”.  One can, or should be able to see the very slippery slope to where that sort of reasoning leads – and it certainly could lead to serious restrictions of the right to free speech depending on how government deicides to “balance” those costs and benefits in the future.  Remember – the First Amendment is a restriction on government, not the people.  And the court enforced that.

The lone dissenter?  Sam Alito who wrote:

“The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it most certainly does not protect violent criminal conduct, even if engaged in for expressive purposes.”

The prosecute the criminal for the crime he has filmed for you.  I can think of nothing that stops the law from doing that.  And that has nothing to do with restricting the First Amendment.

~McQ

T

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

52 Responses to SCOTUS strikes down ban on animal cruelty videos

  • I can think of nothing that stops the law from doing that.

    What if the film is made in a country that does not outlaw the type of cruelty depicted?
    I’m not saying I agree with the law that banned the video (I haven’t read the law to see how broad it was). I’m just responding to the claim I highlighted.

    • What if?  That just makes attempted to illegalize the video that much more of an invasion on freedom of speech.  There is, however, nothing stopping the website that is being used to host the video (if it were posted on, say, YouTube) from removing the video for being objectionable.
       

      • I agree. I was responding to the inability to think of a reason why the law couldn’t go after the original cruelty rather than going after the filmmaker.

    • Then you’ve come up with an exception. The case, however, addressed something over which the court has jurisdiction – something it doesn’t have in another country.

      The point, I think, is you can’t have government deciding it can violate a prohibition on government by claimng its right to balance “relative social costs and benefits” takes precedence over the First Amendment. It has no such enumerated power or duty and certainly none which gives it the right to arbitrarily decide on a standard that abrogates that amendment. Why have a prohibition on government if it can be abrogated by government at its whim?

  • Why have a prohibition on government if it can be abrogated by government at its whim?

    Do you oppose laws prohibiting child pornography?

    • That doesn’t address the point you highlighted. We know there are exceptions to the Frst Amendment. Fighting words. Shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. Child porn is also one. It is a law the court agreed warrants exception because the rights of children are violated in the making of child porn. What the court is saying here is this is not one of those exceptions for the reasons stated and denied the government’s contention that it has a duty to do this balancing of social costs and benefits. It is the court which is empowered to make those exceptions, not the rest of the government.

      • Fighting words. Shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.

        These are direct and identifiable threats to specific people.
        Child porn is also one. It is a law the court agreed warrants exception because the rights of children are violated in the making of child porn
        So you accept (without any analysis) that having a photo of certain illegal activities provide direct and identifiable threats against all children?
        It seems to me that we want (rightfully) to ban this type of speech, but we were so uncomfortable with limiting the First Amendment that we very easily accept this concept that there is a direct threat based on a photo of an illegal act, just like there is a direct threat in “fighting words.”
        Do you honestly believe that photos/film of illegal activities against children are more analogous to fighting words than to photos/film of illegal cruelty against animals?

        • Well first of all, fighting words are not a direct threat. They’re an incitement. Nothing may come of them. But if something does, you’re not protected by claiming your right to free speech was violated by your arrest or that were only exercising your 1st Amd right and weren’t responsible for the outcome. See lynching.

          Child porn is not a direct threat either – it is an actual violation of rights.

          As to your last question, I don’t accept your premise that fighting words are a direct threat and analogous to child porn.

    • Actually, I’m going to agree that this is at the very least a good question. We most certainly have done the thing that the quotation says we must not do.

      However, before getting to deeply into the debate, we should probably take the time to read the full opinion. I can’t justify looking for it or reading it right now, but I would rather suspect the opinion addresses this topic. Anyone have the time to scare up a link? (It may not be up yet but opinions are usually made easily available on the internet.)

      • The actual opinion is here (PDF).
        Another entertaining (and relevant to our current government’s direction) tidbit:

        Despite the Government’s assurance that it will apply §48 to reach only “extreme” cruelty, this Court will not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the Government promises to use it responsibly.

        As I speculated in my earlier post, the opinion does indeed cover this question, child pornography in particular. The Court observes that in the case of child porn, the production of the porn is “intrinsically related” to the abuse and therefore “integrally related to the production of such materials”, justifying their restriction.
        To be honest, I’m not sure the Court fully disposes of JWG’s argument here and I still find an element of circularity. Much more relevant is that the Court observes simply that there is precedent for a limited number of restrictions to the first amendment, the ones we are all quite familiar with, that nobody is challenging, and therefore the real answer to your question, JWG is quite simply: Precedent. With all the force that implies in our common-law system. I agree that a plain reading of the First Amendment is not sufficient to explain why child pornography is banned, but there’s precedent.

        We decline the Government’s invitation —- advanced for the first time in this Court -— to regard as “serious” anything that is not “scant.”

        If I dare read tone into the opinion, the Court is quite sarcastic about the Government’s suggested definition of the word “serious”, this pops up a couple of pages later:

        Most of what we say to one another lacks “religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value” (let alone serious value), but it is still sheltered from government regulation.

        Emphasis theirs.

        Most hunting videos, for example, are not obviously instructional in nature, except in the sense that all life is a lesson.

        Not to worry, the Government says: The Executive Branch construes §48 to reach only “extreme” cruelty, Brief for United States 8, and it “neither has brought nor will bring a prosecution for anything less,” Reply Brief 6–7. The Government hits this theme hard, invoking its prosecutorial discretion several times. See id., at 6–7, 10, and n. 6, 19, 22. But the First Amendment protects against the Government; it does not leave us at the mercy of noblesse oblige. We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the Government promised to use it responsibly.

  • Way to poison the well. Nicely done.

    I don’t know if I agree with the free speech argument on the animal cruelty videos or not, but child pornography is a different class of behavior entirely. Certainly, in both cases, the filmed/photographed acts should be illegal. But that does not mean that the films/photographs necessarily need to be treated the same. For example, I could make an argument of harm to a minor caused by distributing child pornography, separate from the horror of the act filmed or photographed, which would not apply to animals harmed in videos of cruelty to animals.

    I also note that at least one incident has come to light for a child pornography prosecution of an individual based on a fictional account of a sexual encounter with a child, in other words in an incident that did not actually involve a real child. We must be very careful of how much power we give to the government.

    • I could make an argument of harm to a minor caused by distributing

      That sounds suspiciously like claiming the right to balance “relative social costs and benefits” should take precedence over the First Amendment.

      which would not apply to animals harmed in videos of cruelty to animals.

      If the films are popular, then there is incentive to harm more animals in order to make more films. In other words, an animal not harmed by the first film is more likely to be harmed later when the filmmakers go looking for new victims.

      • I could make an argument of harm to a minor caused by distributing

        That sounds suspiciously like claiming the right to balance “relative social costs and benefits” should take precedence over the First Amendment.

        Then you need to look up the difference between civil and criminal law.

        which would not apply to animals harmed in videos of cruelty to animals.

        If the films are popular, then there is incentive to harm more animals in order to make more films. In other words, an animal not harmed by the first film is more likely to be harmed later when the filmmakers go looking for new victims.

        Animals have no civil cause of action. Their owners would, just as the parents or guardians of a child would in similar circumstances. And since animals are legally property, not people, the government has no role in protecting them from their owners, as they do with protecting children from their parents or guardians. (This role comes from the fact that it’s government’s responsibility to protect the people of the United States. I think they often go too far, but that they have some legitimate role seems fairly clear.)

        Look, both animal cruelty and child pornography are horrible acts, and only monstrous people can do either. I wouldn’t shed a tear if people doing either were to just end up dead, instead of the harm caused to their innocent victims. But they are nonetheless not the same horrible act, and therefore it is not reasonable to require that they be treated identically under the law.

        • it is not reasonable to require that they be treated identically under the law
          But that is not the argument being made. The argument was very specifically:

          you can’t have government deciding it can violate a prohibition on government by claiming its right to balance “relative social costs and benefits” takes precedence over the First Amendment

          However, I think you proved my point by making just such an argument. You are arguing that the social costs of child pornography take precedent over the First Amendment.
          Haven’t we ALREADY accepted such a cost/benefit analysis when it comes to free speech? THAT is MY argument.
          Unless someone can explain how accepting a prohibition against certain types of pornography has nothing to do with “relative social costs and benefits”?

          • No the exceptions have to do with the rights of others (in this case the child), not social costs or benefits or the balance thereof. That’s an arbitrary standard. And that isn’t the standard the court used to deicide against child porn.

          • the rights of others

            So the argument is that children have a special right (special because it takes precedent over the First Amendment) to be protected against a non-specific possibility of abuse (no direct threat is being made against a specific person) brought about by someone else’s photograph of illegal activity?

            I’m not disagreeing that child pornography doesn’t have a special status against the First Amendment. I’m just not seeing the argument that makes it unique as not considering a cost/benefit analysis. Unless the argument is that we believe that there is a direct threat being made against children when someone sees a picture. That seems more like we can’t face the fact that we want to limit speech, but can’t really face it without finding a way around the cost/benefit argument.

          • No – the court has said that children aren’t able to rationally consent before an ceratian age. That’s been legal precedent for ages.

            Children can be intimdated, bullied, threatened, seduced, physically overpowered etc. by an adult that is determined to coerce them into doing something they probably don’t want to do even while they say they agreed to do it. It isn’t any “special right”, it is a recognition that they aren’t as able to defend their own rights or rationally consent as can adults. Same right, less able to defend. Note there is no law against regular porn because those who engage in it are able – per our legal reasoning – to properly consent to doing what they do (thus the legal requirement that all participants must be 18 or above). Thus this isn’t about porn – it is about a child’s rights. If it were all about social cost/benefit, someone in power could arbitrarily decide all porn is not worth the social cost. That would violate the rights of those who consent to do sexual acts and be filmed doing it and based in nothing but some nebulous standard of “the cost to society”.

            The court is saying that a) the government has no right or power granted it (via the Constitution) to make such judgments and b) if there are exceptions to the First Amendment, the court will decide them as a matter of rights, not some nonsense called “balancing the social costs and benefits”.

          • Same right, less able to defend

            You are making an argument about the illegal activity of initially putting the child in the sexual environment. The photographer is involved in the original crime. But the person who possesses child pornography cannot argue a right to free speech either, even though they had no direct involvement in the original crime and have not directly made any threats.

            So again, I seriously think many of us want to blindly accept an exception to free speech in the case of protecting children because it is so abhorrent. But then we want to pretend that exception is somehow special and different from other possible exceptions to free speech.

            the court will decide them as a matter of rights, not some nonsense called “balancing the social costs and benefits”

            You still have not explained why a pervert in his basement with a sexual photo of a child (the creation of which he had no part) is exceptionally and constitutionally more threatening than a pervert with a photo of a tortured animal. Isn’t it simply because the photo of the child is so much more socially horrible? How is that not “balancing the social costs and benefits”?

          • Is there any question that the law is primarily established to protect the rights of people and that at another level entirely it demands humane treatment of animals?

            This is a basic matter of hierarchy of interests. No?

            Although, you might want to read Wesley Smith’s blog “Secondhand Smoke” for the latest on attempts to do away with human exceptionalism.

          • Martin McPhillipsIs there any question that the law is primarily established to protect the rights of people and that at another level entirely it demands humane treatment of animals?

            I agree that the law is primarily concerned with protecting the rights of people, but once that’s covered, it concerns itself with protecting the “good” of society, which may also be expressed as upholding the collective conscience of the members of society.  This is where the trouble often comes up.  If we make a law against murder, that’s protecting (or, at least, avenging the violation of) the right to life.  But whose rights are we protecting when we establish crosswalks, hours of operation for bars and liquor stores, what drugs may or may not be legally purchased, etc?

            As for the specific instance of humane treatment of animals, the laws are on the books as a matter of conscience.  Many people love animals, especially common pets like dogs, cats, horses, etc.  They are outraged when they see them needlessly and / or maliciously abused, and so they pass laws to try to stop that sort of thing, or at least make the miscreants pay.  I don’t think it’s a question for most people of doing away with human exceptionalism, but rather a simple statement of affection for furry critters.

            (As an aside, it’s often occured to me that our relative wealth makes this luxury possible.  If my circumstances were like that of my not-so-distant ancestors, my sheepdog wouldn’t be a pampered and much loved pet: she would instead be a vital, hardworking means of keeping meat on my table and clothes on my back that would probably still enjoy my affection but would otherwise be a tool like an axe or plow to be cared for until she reached the point where she was of no more use to me.  Children also used to be viewed in much the same way: they were born to work and help provide for the family.  The idea of childhood leisure and innocence is, I believe, of fairly modern date.)

          • “The idea of childhood leisure and innocence is, I believe, of fairly modern date.” – true.  Children were frequently sent off to live with someone who would teach them a useful trade.   Not unusual at all.

          • The recognition of inherent human rights is a fairly recent thing too. That doesn’t mean they didn’t exist prior to their recogntion. Recognition of the limited abilities of a child and how easily they can be used and moving to protect them is simply a part of that evolution.

          • No, I’m not making the argument about the illegal activity of putting a child in a sexual environment – I’m making the argument that the child porn is an action that violates the rights of the child. The photorapher is as much a part of the conspiracy to commit the violation as the person who actually does so. But that bottom line is the reason there’s an exception has to do with the rights of the child (and their inability to competently consent) and not “social costs and benefits”.

            As for the prevert in the basement, he’s not protected for the same reason the person who incites a riot isn’t covered by the 1st Amendment whether or not he actually takes part in the violence. He too, by demand, incites the violation of the child’s rights.

          • “He too, by demand, incites the violation of the child’s rights.”

            Ah!

          • So by your logic anyone who consumes a product that violates another individual’s rights is inciting the violation as well and is not constitutionally protected? Are you sure you want to curve that slope??

          • That’s not the “logic” at all but instead a gross oversimplification and mischaracterization of the argument. And you know it.

          • Um, you’re the one who wrote the statement as a way to differentiate one type of speech from another. I’m just trying to get you to see how we  fool ourselves into accepting some constitutional limits due to the horrible nature of the speech. It’s clear you don’t want to discuss how the line is hypocritically drawn, so I’ll stop trying. I thought you’d be interested in dissecting the logic since you posted it. Oh well.

          • Take a bullet – a product that can certianly violate the rights of another – and make the case. It’s you arguing “that’s the logic” not me. Dissect away.

          • Thus this isn’t about porn – it is about a child’s rights.
            Raping an adult is illegal. Possessing a film of the rape is not. Raping a child is a crime. Possessing a film of the rape is also a crime. In neither case did the victim consent. Yet they are treated differently.

            Of course it’s about the social costs. I believe we are trying to fool ourselves.

          • And we’ve explained the difference between a child and an adult at least 5 times and why the court makes an exception for them when it comes to the 1st Amendment and child porn.

  • Do rulings require a dissenter by tradition due to the adversarial nature of law and Alito was devil’s advocate?  I don’t think so, but just checking.

  • Alito’s dissent (here, pdf, the whole decision) is primarily, as a matter of legal reasoning, predicated on the idea that the lower court hadn’t even decided if the videos were illegal under the statute, and thus it should have been remanded back for them to make that decision, and then back up to the Supreme Court for the constitutional issue if it was found to be in violation of the statute.

    (He then goes on to say, more or less, “but since the majority decided to use the overbreadth argument, this is why I think it’s wrongly applied here”.l)

  • Almost always better to let people decide what they will express and what they will watch.

    There are exceptions, like snuff films (actual people being murdered for film entertainment) and child pornography.

    Don’t know the full extent of this filming animal cruelty case, but you have to be aware that there are people now who think that slaughtering animals for food is animal cruelty, etc. Again, if the standard is simply killing animals for pleasure (not sport hunting, but just killing for the sheer effect of actual cruelty) then a law narrowly defined and for the purpose of putting a cost on such abuse for the purpose of entertainment, is an exception to the First Amendment, the focal point of which is political speech and then individual expression across a broad range, but not something so deeply sick that the underlying act is so vicious that it is itself illegal and the presentation of it on film correlates precisely with the sick and vicious nature of the act itself. In othere words a depraved indifference to a basic social norm.

    The danger, going out from that, will come from the lunatics who want to outlaw all sorts of human treatment of animals, and would consider a cable show that features deer hunting to be the equivalent of a snuff film.

    The real thing that needs defending isn’t so much the First Amendment as it is common sense, whence the First Amendement flows. The ability to make close, clear distinctions about right and wrong, and then make a further close, clear distinction about what constitutes free expression of a given phenomenon and what constitutes a grave act of moral depravity.

    • you have to be aware that there are people now who think that slaughtering animals for food is animal cruelty

      The law specified that the act being filmed had to be illegal.

      • I was trying to get at the dynamics of a slippery slope.

        Dog fighting is illegal, for instance, but showing dog fighting in a motion picture as part of a real story, should not be proscribed.

        Distributing tapes of dog fighting as dog fighting for entertainment falls in the category of “that’s evidence of an underlying crime, go after that.”

        Distributing tapes of some demented psychopath torturing animals for fun, where there isn’t even a cultural excuse of “dog fighting is a thing we do,” then I think you get into something that doesn’t merit a First Amendment protection. In other words, I think that there is going to be a point where stretching the First Amendment to cover something like that does damage to the First Amendment, turing it into an enabling act for utter depravity. 

  • This seems to be part of how the law defined what was illegal:

    A depiction of “animal cruelty” is defined as one “in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed,” if that conduct violates federal or state law where “the creation, sale, or possession takes place.”

    I find it difficult to see how a “hunting” video could be deemed illegal as long as the act was legal in the first place.
    However, here is how the comparison to child pornography is dealt with (citations removed):

    When we have identified categories of speech as fully outside the protection of the First Amendment, it has not been on the basis of a simple cost-benefit analysis. In Ferber, for example, we classified child pornography as such a category. We noted that the State of New York had a compelling interest in protecting children from abuse, and that the value of using children in these works (as opposed to simulated conduct or adult actors) was de minimis. But our decision did not rest on this “balance of competing interests alone. We made clear that Ferber presented a special case: The market for child pornography was “intrinsically related” to the underlying abuse, and was therefore “an integral part of the production of such materials, an activity illegal throughout the Nation.”

    At first reading, I find this explanation somewhat weak as an explanation as to how this is not a cost/benefit analysis. I’ll have to read it more thoroughly.

  • According to the court you have the right to get a lap dance or watch a crush video. But your right to express your opinion by organizing with other like minded citizens and take to the airwaves to advertise against a political figure x days before an election is subject to “an ad hoc balancing of social costs….”. And while I commend the court for its recent decision in Citizens United, I wonder why they find it easy to apply the First Amendment to things with no socially redeeming value (lap dances, crush videos) while reviewing laws that restrict and/or inhibit political speech is so “hard”. Surely quaint eighteenth century phrases such as “shall not” mean something.

    • they find it easy to apply the First Amendment to things with no socially redeeming value

      That’s a good thing. Because when our government finds it hard to apply the Bill of Rights to things a majority of people do not value, then we start the real slide into tyranny.

  • … and who knew that PETA had a friend in Sam Alito ?

  • Raping an adult is illegal. Possessing a film of the rape is not. Raping a child is a crime. Possessing a film of the rape is also a crime. In neither case did the victim consent. Yet they are treated differently. Of course it’s about the social costs. I believe we are trying to fool ourselves.
    BINGO. People always think they can draw some bright line that will make all the hard decisions go away but it doesn’t work that way.
    Life is messy.

    • Is possession of the film of an acutal rape not illegal? I’m just asking. It certainly is nothing that the First Amendment should protect. For one thing, you are not expressing anything. You are merely in the possession of a record of a criminal act which could not be protected under the First Amendment.

      I can think of ways that possession of the film of an actual rape could be ipso facto criminal, such as paying the rapist directly for the film (misprision of a felony), and certainly being part of arranging for the film to be made (conspiracy to commit rape), even though you didn’t participate directly in the rape.

  • My, what a surprisingly active and interesting thread we have here.

    McQ[T]he court refused to allow the government to institute arbitrary or “ad hoc” standards that “balance relative social costs and benefits”.  One can, or should be able to see the very slippery slope to where that sort of reasoning leads – and it certainly could lead to serious restrictions of the right to free speech depending on how government deicides to “balance” those costs and benefits in the future. 

    I suggest that the law, at its core, is ALWAYS about balancing relative social costs and benefits.  Consider the costs and benefits in the proscription against shouting fire in a crowded theatre.

         BENEFIT – Freedom of speech, even stupid or irresponsible speech

         COST – People may well be hurt or killed as a direct result of the stupid or irresponsible speech

    In the cost / benefit analysis of this scenario, the safety of a number of people wins over the absolute right to free speech as it should.*

    The subject of child porn has been raised.  Why do we as a society outlaw this particular type of “expression”?  I suggest that it’s because – again – our lawmakers and courts have agreed that the balance between relative social costs and benefits tilts strongly AGAINST child porn because the costs to society FAR outweigh the benefits of unlimited free speech^.

    This sort of decision is nothing new in our country.  Free speech has been routinely violated in a variety of cases and for a variety of causes.  In the past, Hugh Hefner would have been tossed in the klink for publishing Playboy.  Spouting Red propaganda could get you thrown out of the country.  Urging men not to submit to the draft could net a prison term.  One can be punished for incitement to riot.  Etc, etc.  In all cases, judges were required to balance the right to free speech with its alleged, supposed, projected, hypothetical impact on the society.  Sometimes, they were right.  Sometimes, they were wrong.  As Cassandra says, “People always think they can draw some bright line that will make all the hard decisions go away but it doesn’t work that way.  Life is messy.”

    —–

    (*) Playing devil’s advocate, I suggest that it should NOT.  People are assumed to be capable of looking after themselves and do not need the government to protect them from being scared.  The same may be said about “fighting words”: an adult citizen is assumed to have enough self-control to NOT get into a fight just because somebody said provoking words to him.  Or is there really something to “speech codes” and “hate speech” laws?  Are some words REALLY so bad that they ought to be banned?

    (^) Again, devil’s advocate.  What damage is done to society due to child porn?  For that matter, what rights of a child are violated?  How do we make this decision?  I suggest that “child” is a legal definition that has varied over the years, and the “child” of today may well have been considered an adult in the past and possibly would be considered such today in other countries (how much difference is there between a person 17 years and 364 days old and a person 18 years and 0 days old?).  Even if a person is a child, we give considerable latitude to the child’s parents / guardians in determining what may be done to that child: if a parent can send a child to work to bring money into the family, the why should that work not include the sex trade?  I suggest, therefore, that the “social cost” being borne is a cost to our collective consciences: some things are widely regarded as so despicable that they simply do not deserve legal protections under ANY pretext.  As with the “fire in the theatre” case, do we want or need the government protecting us from being outraged… or even protecting us from ourselves?

    Lest it be thought that I’m in favor of legalizing child porn, I’m not.  IMO, it ought to be a burning-at-the-stake offense.

  • So is child pornography the big exception? You can be prosecuted severely for filming, photographing, and even possessing it. And the argument is that if you are filming it, you are contributing to the act because it wouldn’t have been done unless except for your consumption (among other arguments). But why does this not apply to animal cruelty? I think Alito is right, that it can be narrowly applied to some intended outlawed acts.

  • I think that is it good that the US Constitution protects freedom of speech to this extent.  There is no express protection of this in the Australian Constitution, which I believe is a bad thing.  Even if perhaps what the frist Amendment allows people to say or publish may be undersirable, it is still very much within their rights to say it.

  • I’m not sure what to think about this ruling. I don’t feel like we should every ban free speech in any form other than to protect our children from things that are not appropriate. This would change as they come of age. I think the key might be to take individual responsibility for parents to watch their kids and to keep them from viewing this or any other type of objectionable material. As adults, it is up to us not to watch this kind of crap if we so choose.