First Amendment advocates applauded the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling Tuesday striking down a federal law that made it a crime to create, sell or possess certain depictions of animal cruelty. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., writing for an 8-1 majority, called the law a "criminal prohibition of alarming breadth," and sharply criticized the government's defense of the law. The ruling left open the possibility that a statute narrowly focused on so-called "crush videos" might be found constitutional.
April 21, 2010 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In a strong endorsement of classic First Amendment principles, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a federal law that made it a crime to create, sell or possess certain depictions of animal cruelty.
Calling the law a “criminal prohibition of alarming breadth,” Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. said there was no basis for carving out such an ill-defined exception to the First Amendment. Roberts wrote for an 8-1 majority in the case, U.S. v. Stevens (pdf).
Presented by BigVoodoo
This event shines a spotlight on the individuals, teams, projects and organizations that are changing the financial industry.
BTI provides leading tax professionals from financial institutions with unmatched tools and resources.
Honoring outstanding legal achievements focused at the national level, largely around Big Law and in-house departments.
CORE RESPONSIBILITIES AND TASKS:(1) Tasks and responsibilities include:Reviewing and negotiating commercial agreements for internal business...
Boutique midtown Manhattan law firm specializing in sophisticated real estate litigation & representation of commercial and residential ...
Description: Fox Rothschild has an opening in the Boston, MA office for a Litigation Associate with 3 to 5 years of experience. The ideal ca...
