Nicht aus der Schweiz? Besuchen Sie lehmanns.de
United States of America v. Robert J. Stevens -  Henry Mark Holzer

United States of America v. Robert J. Stevens (eBook)

International Society for Animal Rights, Amicus Curiae in Support of the Government
eBook Download: EPUB
2009 | 1. Auflage
40 Seiten
Bookbaby (Verlag)
978-1-62095-765-3 (ISBN)
Systemvoraussetzungen
1,79 inkl. MwSt
(CHF 1,75)
Der eBook-Verkauf erfolgt durch die Lehmanns Media GmbH (Berlin) zum Preis in Euro inkl. MwSt.
  • Download sofort lieferbar
  • Zahlungsarten anzeigen
It has been said that the enshrinement of free speech and press in the First Amendment gives those civil liberties a 'preferred position' in the constitutional pantheon because they make possible all other rights of Americans. Although the 'preferred position' notion has never commanded a majority decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, still, First Amendment rights have long been considered of paramount importance even though several exceptions have been carved into them by the Supreme Court of the United States. For example, so-called 'fighting words,' obscenity and defamation are unprotected, 'commercial speech,' is sometimes protected, sometimes not. Not often do constitutional rights of free speech, press or religion clash in the Supreme Court of the United States with those of animal rights. They did, however, in the case of Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, Florida, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). The case involved an ordinance of the City of Hialeah, Florida, which prohibited the Santeria cult from sacrificing animals as part of its barbaric 'religious' ceremony. (On behalf of ISAR and eleven other animal protection organizations, Professor Henry Mark Holzer and Lance Gotko, Esq., filed amicus curiae briefs in the Supreme Court in support of the City of Hialeah. For copies of both briefs, see: http://www.isaronline.citymax.com/f/Church_Case_Briefs_1.pdf.) The Hialeah Court unanimously (9-0) ruled the ordinance unconstitutional, as an infringement of the Santerians freedom of religion. In recent years another case reached the Supreme Court pitting alleged First Amendment speech rights against animals' actual right to be free from cruelty. A 1999 federal law made it a crime to 'create, sell, or possess' depictions of illegal cruelty to animals, especially so-called 'crush videos,' the nature of which I leave to the reader's imagination. It's important to understand that the law did not criminalize the illegal cruelty itself, which was and is a crime under the laws of all fifty states. The federal law criminalized, in essence, dissemination of the depictions of illegal cruelty. To the extent that dissemination of videos, DVDs, movies, books, magazines and other graphic materials are exercises of speech (and often press) rights, the federal felony statute seemingly created another (animal cruelty) exception to First Amendment protections.
It has been said that the enshrinement of free speech and press in the First Amendment gives those civil liberties a "e;preferred position"e; in the constitutional pantheon because they make possible all other rights of Americans. Although the "e;preferred position"e; notion has never commanded a majority decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, still, First Amendment rights have long been considered of paramount importance even though several exceptions have been carved into them by the Supreme Court of the United States. For example, so-called "e;fighting words,"e; obscenity and defamation are unprotected, "e;commercial speech,"e; is sometimes protected, sometimes not. Not often do constitutional rights of free speech, press or religion clash in the Supreme Court of the United States with those of animal rights. They did, however, in the case of Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, Florida, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). The case involved an ordinance of the City of Hialeah, Florida, which prohibited the Santeria cult from sacrificing animals as part of its barbaric "e;religious"e; ceremony. (On behalf of ISAR and eleven other animal protection organizations, Professor Henry Mark Holzer and Lance Gotko, Esq., filed amicus curiae briefs in the Supreme Court in support of the City of Hialeah. For copies of both briefs, see: http://www.isaronline.citymax.com/f/Church_Case_Briefs_1.pdf.) The Hialeah Court unanimously (9-0) ruled the ordinance unconstitutional, as an infringement of the Santerians freedom of religion. In recent years another case reached the Supreme Court pitting alleged First Amendment speech rights against animals' actual right to be free from cruelty. A 1999 federal law made it a crime to "e;create, sell, or possess"e; depictions of illegal cruelty to animals, especially so-called "e;crush videos,"e; the nature of which I leave to the reader's imagination. It's important to understand that the law did not criminalize the illegal cruelty itself, which was and is a crime under the laws of all fifty states. The federal law criminalized, in essence, dissemination of the depictions of illegal cruelty. To the extent that dissemination of videos, DVDs, movies, books, magazines and other graphic materials are exercises of speech (and often press) rights, the federal felony statute seemingly created another (animal cruelty) exception to First Amendment protections. A legal search of the home of a Virginia man, Robert J. Stevens, turned up three videos depicting illegal cruelty to animals which were introduced, narrated and commented on by him, together with accompanying printed material of which he was the author. Stevens was indicted on three counts of violating the federal statute, convicted, and sentenced to 37 months in prison and three years of supervised release. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (in a 10-3 vote) ruled the law to be an unconstitutional abridgment of Stevens's First Amendment right of free speech, and threw out his conviction. The appellate court majority's decision turned on whether the First Amendment's free speech guaranty was outweighed by the federal government's interest in prohibiting dissemination of depictions of illegal animal cruelty.
Erscheint lt. Verlag 1.6.2009
Sprache englisch
Themenwelt Recht / Steuern Öffentliches Recht Verfassungsrecht
ISBN-10 1-62095-765-5 / 1620957655
ISBN-13 978-1-62095-765-3 / 9781620957653
Haben Sie eine Frage zum Produkt?
EPUBEPUB (Ohne DRM)
Größe: 87 KB

Digital Rights Management: ohne DRM
Dieses eBook enthält kein DRM oder Kopier­schutz. Eine Weiter­gabe an Dritte ist jedoch rechtlich nicht zulässig, weil Sie beim Kauf nur die Rechte an der persön­lichen Nutzung erwerben.

Dateiformat: EPUB (Electronic Publication)
EPUB ist ein offener Standard für eBooks und eignet sich besonders zur Darstellung von Belle­tristik und Sach­büchern. Der Fließ­text wird dynamisch an die Display- und Schrift­größe ange­passt. Auch für mobile Lese­geräte ist EPUB daher gut geeignet.

Systemvoraussetzungen:
PC/Mac: Mit einem PC oder Mac können Sie dieses eBook lesen. Sie benötigen dafür die kostenlose Software Adobe Digital Editions.
eReader: Dieses eBook kann mit (fast) allen eBook-Readern gelesen werden. Mit dem amazon-Kindle ist es aber nicht kompatibel.
Smartphone/Tablet: Egal ob Apple oder Android, dieses eBook können Sie lesen. Sie benötigen dafür eine kostenlose App.
Geräteliste und zusätzliche Hinweise

Buying eBooks from abroad
For tax law reasons we can sell eBooks just within Germany and Switzerland. Regrettably we cannot fulfill eBook-orders from other countries.

Mehr entdecken
aus dem Bereich
Geschichte - Struktur - Funktionen

von Werner Reutter

eBook Download (2024)
Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden (Verlag)
CHF 87,90