Dog Fighting Videos Protected By First Amendment?

When I first saw this on the news, I couldn't believe it.

There's a court case going on that will determine if dog fighting videos are protected speech. Whoever thinks that they are needs a good boot in the ass.

If the law that is being challenged is too broad, and will include a ban on hunting shows that show wild animals being shot by hunters, then they need to re-do the law which bans specific types of videos, such as dog fighting.

But leave the First Amendment out of this. This is a vile abuse of the court system to use the First Amendment to allow this contemptible blood sport to continue.

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of U.S. Navy Use of Sonar Without Restrictions

Environmental wackos lost their case against the U.S. Navy today, when the Supreme Court ruled that the Navy could use sonar whenever and wherever it needed to.

Lower court judges had issued injunctions against the Navy to prevent it from using sonar to detect enemy submarines when in proximity to marine life, whether in practice or in an actual combat situations. The high court found that the possibility of having an untrained anti-submarine force being deployed against an enemy (with no such restrictions) presented a danger to the safety of the fleet, and outweighed the potential danger to the little fishies.

The Supreme Court decision is the correct one. It would be a HUGE gamble to have an inexperienced Navy crew going after a Russian or Chinese-built sub with a nuclear payload targeted at American cities.

If the wackos don't like it, why don't they take their money and find an alternative detection system that the Navy can equip their ships and subs with, so that the Navy can get rid of their EVIL sonars and save the little fishes?

Yesterday's Supreme Court Decision on Death Penalty Was Messy, But Correct

Yesterday's ruling by the Supreme Court on applying the death penalty to child rapists when no life has been lost was a tough one, but was also correct.

Before I go any further, rape in ANY form is a HORRIFIC crime that does need to be punished by life in prison without any possibility of parole.

"An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, name for a name, life for a life" is a mantra that is often quoted by death penalty supporters, but it also implies some kind of balance in the application of the death penalty. And for the last 30+ years, the death penalty has not been imposed without a special circumstance: the death of the victim as a result of the crime.

I think the possibility of a death penalty wouldn't deter an animal that unleashes this kind of hell on a child anyways; they're going to do it because they think they can get away with it. I think that's a common belief among among criminal elements.

This ruling affects similar laws in six or more states; the federal statutes remain intact.

This is a victory for death penalty opponents, but the victory is bittersweet, given the abomination that child rape is. This ruling can be considered a step forward in creating a more uniform system when the death penalty is being considered, which is good news. In time, I think this court decision will be proven correct.