Somewhat off topic, but Balko is my favorite new national media figure since Welch

I realize that it is a rhetorical question, but: by what right does the federal government ban video depictions of anything? This is so far beyond the bounds of federal jurisdiction as to be unbelievable.

One can only marvel at the complete and total disconnect between federal politicians and the rest of the population. In their world, this sort of overreach is probably entirely justifiable and obvious.

Actually, as sick as people are who stomp animals to death, Congress still should have asked itself the question: "what business is this of ours, as the federal government?"

I'm sure they mean well. As a favorite teacher used to say at every opportunity: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

"Solicitor General Elena Kagan suggests the Justice Department will avoid such bizarre results by applying the statute judiciously."

Well that sure fills me with confidence! I'm sure my betters will all be judicious and wise.

This post has been removed pursuant to section 47b of the classified annex to the Patriot Act. If you need to know what that is, somebody has already briefed you.
--
phunctor

The article was written by Jacob Sullum, not Radley Balko.

"Solicitor General Elena Kagan suggests the Justice Department will avoid such bizarre results by applying the statute judiciously."

Well that sure fills me with confidence! I'm sure my betters will all be judicious and wise.

Certainly! We never see any miscarriages of justice due to overly zealous prosecutors. /sarcasm

You know the old saying about the worst thing you ever want to hear? "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you." This has now been superceded by: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to take care of you."

You know the old saying about the worst thing you ever want to hear? "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you." This has now been superceded by: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to take care of you."

You sure it isn't "I'm from the government and I'm here to fuck you up the ass?"

Or is that just Roman Polanski coming for your daughter?

Well, "take care of you" does have a couple of very different meanings...

Well, hang in there -- we're really looking forward to the book!

bradley13, Puritanical fervor needs an outlet. In the old days government censors could ban pornography in any medium, distributed to any audience. Limitations on what can be prosecuted these days mean the bluenoses come down extra hard on the forms it's still fashionable to quash.

But those aren't enough; the overseers of others' morals need more things to purify. So they are extending their reach.

Sigh... More of the criminalization-of-everything mentality. You'd almost think it's deliberate (yes, that was sarcasm). The interesting thing is, if you ask people whether they support making all ordinary behavior prosecutable, they'll all say no. It's a position which apparently has zero support -- and yet it keeps rollin' on down the river, seemingly unstoppable. Somebody somewhere is lying.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights may not be dead issues yet but they are certainly on life support. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments were pretty well eviscerated by the early 20th Century. The Second Amendment has been under serious attack since 1934 (or 1968 by some reckonings). The Fourth and Fifth Amendments have been interpreted out of existence to fight the Drugged War. It just took a little longer to get to the First Amendment.

The Constitution is powerless to prevent the kind of government we have today. Only the people can do that but they have to want to.

@Cousin Dave: "The interesting thing is, if you ask people whether they support making all ordinary behavior prosecutable, they'll all say no."

Cousin Dave, I suspect you're right, but only if you ask the question that way. I bet you'd find plenty of people willing to outlaw behavior, or even speech, that they find particularly deplorable. I'd bet the federal statute discussed in the Reason article has plenty of supporters.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan suggests the Justice Department will avoid such bizarre results by applying the statute judiciously.

"Judicious" application of the law is selective application of the law.

This kind of thinking is typical of folks who think that when the revolution comes, they'll be directing the firing squad, not facing it.

Robespierre thought that way. It didn't work out to well for him. Self-righteous revolutions always eat their own.

And Conan the Barbarian would not be the only film to be in trouble under that statute. As Good As It Gets features a dog being thrown down a garbage shaft. There's Something About Mary features a dog flying through an open window. Sweet Home Alabama features a discussion (depiction?) of a cat being dynamited.

What about shooting the rabid dog in To Kill A Mockingbird? Or does it get a pass for its "artistic" value? Who decides what is "artistic" value?

How about fake animals? Would the killing of King Kong, Godzilla, or the giant crocodile in Lake Placid fall under the statute.

Will the Acme Corporation be made to answer for the harm their faulty products have caused to Wiley Coyote? Will Wiley Coyote be made to answer for his attempts to perpetrate cruelty upon the innocent Roadrunner? Will Sylvester be sent to the big house? Oh, Father?

It sounds like this law was very poorly conceived and written.

The government can pry my Conan DVD from my cold, dead hands. By Krom!

@Ms. Alkon: "...the art director from the Dayton City Paper is fixing my hair..."

I was going to ask you how you were associated with the Dayton City Paper, since I grew up in that area, but a quick glance at their site took care of that. Have you, Midwestern gal that you are, ever made it out there?

Why are not animal cruelty laws sufficient? If an animal was made to suffer illegally, then those that caused the suffering should be prosecuted within the law. The First Amendment should not be involved.

Why are not animal cruelty laws sufficient?

For the same reason that murder and assault laws had to be augmented with hate crime laws. It's not about punishing the guilty, but about control.

Hmm, good point Conan. Old Yeller should be banned.

I am reminded of a video (sorry don't remember the artist) that starts out with the following:

"No animals were hurt or maimed in the production of this presentation."

"Nor even teased."

And no animals appeared in it at all.

Unfortunately those types of changes on books seem common. An aquaintence wrote a highly technical book that got the cover changed to try and jump on the "For dummies" book crazy that was going on at the time.

I read somewhere there are a lot of actors (Clint Eastwood was one of the first) who have a "no harm to animals" clause in their contracts. But, For the same reason that murder and assault laws had to be augmented with hate crime laws. It's not about punishing the guilty, but about control. I think Conan's got it right.

Anyone who watched the "behind the scenes" of Conan knows that no horse was harmed in the production. Those special effects guys are genius at creating the illusion of harm.

Amy, hang in there with the book! What a nightmare. I really hope it all gets resolved.

"How about fake animals?"

That is an excellent question. Remember the justification for outlawing child pornography: to prevent children from being abused to make the stuff. Inevitably, this has now been extended to ban cartoon depictions of child pornography. The link is Australian, but there are other cases of "virtual" depicitions prosecuted in the USA and elsewhere.

So, yes: if this ban is accepted, it will be extended to cover not only actual animal cruelty (whatever the censors decide that may be), but any depiction of animal cruelty, however artificial.

"They" not only want to regulate your activities, but also your thoughts...

I've often said that Congress is the world's largest group of collectively useless people. Sorry, don't have the answer right now.

Bradley13,

Re Child Pornography laws, we knowpeople will stop doing things when they become illegal. The only value in such laws is they allow the state to put assholes in prison which is possibly a deterrent; I don't generally believe in a nanny state, and I'm happy that all the fun narcotics may one day be legal here as it's evidence that some politicians can actually think.

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but from what I read of the law - at http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/3/48 - they're talking about ACTUAL depictions of ACTUAL cruelty.

So: fake dog in cast tossed out window in "Something About Mary" - fine. Cartoon cat falls off thousand-foot cliff and vaporizes on contact with the ground - fine. Pitbulls put in a cage for purpose of fighting to the death - not fine. Horse tripped with wire - not fine. (As a horse person, I'm VERY well aware that tripping horses is NOT safe, and if somehow Conan stunt horses managed to survive unscathed, it'd be close to a miracle).

This sounds to me like an animal welfare law, and I'm not sure how I can wind myself into objecting to the prohibition of torturing/injuring/killing animals specifically for entertainment. I'm not some crazed animal-rights loon (animal welfare and animal rights are VERY different beasts!) and I'm not a vegetarian.

But what this law seems designed to prevent, is for Blockbuster Movie Director to film in a country with no animal welfare laws, so that he can, say, tie dynamite to a cow and blow it up for a scene.

And in these days of CGI, there's no need to blow up a real cow, so we're not going to risk the artistic vision of the director, even.

I would assume - though am also open to being found wrong - that past movies such as Conan would be grandfathered/exempt.

Are folks here opposed to the dogfighting laws that got Michael Vick in trouble, too? And which are the main gist of the case being discussed?

The movie version of The Charge of the Light Brigade involved lots and lots of horses being tripped...David Niven was so disgusted that he entitled his autobiography Bring On the Empty Horses.

"David Niven was so disgusted that he entitled his autobiography Bring On the Empty Horses."

Not according to Bring On The Empty Horses itself. Niven wrote that "empty horses" were empty champagne bottles into which the officers seated at very long regimental dinners urinated, so as not to rudely leave the table!

Great book. One of my favorite actors. Too bad he got dementia at the end.

I thought it was as reported in Wikipedia: Director Michael Curtiz, who did not have an excellent command of English, shouted "Bring on the empty horses", meaning "riderless horses". David Niven used this as the title of his book about the Golden Age of Hollywood.

I do recall the empty bottle story, but that was in "Moon's a Balloon".

Lauren,

I read both books, but it's been more than 30 years. I think I'm correct, but maybe not! Memory can be a strange thing ... .

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but from what I read of the law - at http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/3/48 - they're talking about ACTUAL depictions of ACTUAL cruelty.

Lessie, the problem is this: animal cruelty is already illegal. They are prohibiting depictions of animal cruelty. This is a very important distinction.

The best illustration of what can - and will - happen are the child pornography laws. They also prohibit depicitions of real child pornography. With judicial creep, they have been extended to prohibit anything that can possibly be interpreted as such: pics of your own (naked) kids in the tub, computer graphics, and even a sarcastic drawing of Bart Simpson having sex. None of this judicial creep was foreseen when the original, well-intended laws were written.

Prohibiting depictions - as opposed to actions - makes for very bad law.

> I do recall the empty bottle story,
> but that was in "Moon's a Balloon".

I read that book years ago. It wasn't great or anything, but it still feels like you and I have a mutual friend.

One of the most memorable passages was when Niven was negotiating a deal with a studio boss, and bluffing about his independence. The studio boss picked up the phone, called Niven's bank, and asked how much money was in his account, humiliating him and securing his signature on miserly contract. It's hard to imagine a financial institution casually passing that information to anyone, even Robert Iger, nowadays.

A couple weeks ago I read this book about the 70's by Frum. It very convincingly demonstrates that the misconduct which got Nixon thrown out of the White House was exactly what had been practiced by the previous two (Democratic) administrations... Wiretaps and surreptitious recordings, use of the IRS as an assault team, financial shakedowns of whole industries for political support, and so forth.

It would take more than that for me to feel sorry for Nixon's team. Nonetheless, there must have been hours where typically reasonable men asked "What did we do that was so wrong?"

We aren't always fully conscious of the profound changes that move through society in a short time.