This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Six members of Stop Huntingdon AnimalCruelty were convicted at a 2006 trial in New Jersey of conspiracy to violate the 1992 Animal Enterprise Protection Act. The law, since revised, aimed to protectanimal research laboratories from illegal, sometimes violent protests. From the Philadelphia Inquirer.
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment protects depictions of animalcruelty. This does not mean that it protectsanimalcruelty, which is (and ought to be) illegal in every state.
To the Editor: Re “ Disgusting but Not Illegal ” (editorial, Aug. 2): We disagree with your contention that the First Amendment protectsanimal “crush” videos. Stevens , the Supreme Court last year overturned a 1999 law banning depictions of animalcruelty on the grounds of overbreadth. In United States v.
Code, Title 18.48, made it a federal crime to knowingly create, sell, or possess a depiction of animalcruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain. Similarly, child pornography is not protected by the First Amendment. I don’t think so. Code, Title 18.48
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 30+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content