http://www.newsweek.com/id/216740Kittens, brutality, fetish videos, and dogfighting—these aren't the elements of a twisted cable-television show; they're just some of the factors in one of Tuesday's U.S. Supreme Court cases that will kick off the court’s new term. The court will hear the federal government's appeal of U.S. v. Stevens, a circuit court's overturning of a 1999 federal law that makes it a crime to create, sell, or possess depictions of animal cruelty for commercial gain. If the court reverses the lower court's decision and reinstates the law, images showing the intentional torture or killing of animals would be deemed illegal. But technically, so might depictions of bullfighting in Spain or fishing and hunting out of season.
Sexual-fetish videos called “crush videos” became an Internet craze in the late 1990s, picturing women in their bare feet or high heels crushing to death small animals such as mice or kittens. Congress passed a law in 1999 to outlaw the production of the videos, and distribution of them came to a halt. Though the law has been in effect for years, no one was ever prosecuted for producing a crush video. Instead, in 2004, a Virginia man was the first person to be indicted under the law for selling what he claims is an educational film.
Not trolling, but I don't see the big deal about animals. Isn't the cat or hamster or whatever just a person property and they should be allowed to do whatever they want with it? You can buy mice from a pet store and feed it to a snake, it's still just property you bought. People bought the kittens, shouldn't they be allowed to do whatever they want with the property they bought with their hard earned money?
