This week the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a First Amendment case involving a 1999 federal law that criminalizes production and distribution of videos depicting animal cruelty. The law was prompted by outrage over "crush" videos in which women step on small, furry animals in a manner that sexually arouses what I'm hoping is a very tiny percentage of porn fans. When Bill Clinton signed the bill, he instructed the Justice Department to focus on "wanton cruelty to animals designed to appeal to a prurient interest in sex." Yet all of the prosecutions so far have involved dog fights, footage of which is banned by the law even if the actual fights took place in places (such as Japan) where they are legal. Indeed, the ban covers videos of anything that now qualifies as illegal treatment of animals in the jurisdiction where they are sold, potentially including records of Spanish bullfighting, Russian bear baiting, Louisiana cockfighting, or even hunting out of season. The law exempts material with "serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value," opening the door to subjective, arbitrary, and unpredictable applications. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit found the law unconstitutional in 2007. If the Supreme Court reverses that decision, it will be creating a new category of speech that is outside the protection of the First Amendment.
John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, and Sonia Sotomayor have all denied Nina Totenberg's story about a SCOTUS dispute over masking.
The Sedition Indictment Against 11 Oath Keepers Describes a Plot That Was Pitifully Inept and Ineffectual
This is the first time that participants in the Capitol riot have been charged with sedition.
Things are getting so bad for Democrats that some are starting to wish for Hillary Clinton to return to politics. Yikes.
Miyares' office says the conviction integrity unit is being expanded. Time will tell if it will have the independence and resources to succeed.
Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin's support for qualified immunity is in opposition to the principles he says he stands for.