Oct 6th, 2009 - Washington Post
It has been 25 years since the Supreme Court decided a category of speech -- child pornography -- was so unredeeming that it did not merit the protection of the First Amendment. Justices gave no indication Tuesday that they were ready to add another.
In an oral argument on animal cruelty that touched on bullfighting, cockfighting, fattening geese to make pate and even a hypothetical "human sacrifice channel," the court searched for the limits of the Constitution's guarantee of free speech. The justices indicated Congress had gone too far in its attempt to protect animals from abuse.
Related stories:
Court considers display of cross, appearing to seek narrow ruling
Oct 8th, 2009 - Philly
But the Supreme Court yesterday seemed disinclined to answer most of them.
Justices spent nearly half of the oral argument deciding what they were deciding about the 61/2-foot...Supreme Court debates legality of cross memorial
Oct 8th, 2009 - ChicagoTribune
WASHINGTON - -- A Supreme Court argument Wednesday over a cross within the Mojave National Preserve sparked a sharp dispute on whether it stands as a symbol of all fallen soldiers...
Supreme Court weighs free speech vs. animal cruelty
Oct 6th, 2009 - Los Angeles Times
Reporting from Washington - Could the government outlaw a hypothetical "Human Sacrifice Channel" on cable TV? That question became the focus of a Supreme Court argument...
Supreme Court Debates Crush Videos
Oct 6th, 2009 - Los Angeles Times
Washington - Could the government outlaw a future "Human Sacrifice Channel" on cable TV? That question became the focus of a Supreme Court argument today on the reach...
Supreme Court to decide case on animal cruelty and free speech
Oct 5th, 2009 - The Christian Science Monitor
Washington - It's been a quarter century since the US Supreme Court declared an entire category of speech unworthy of First Amendment protection. On Tuesday morning, the...



