Originally posted June 2011
We told You so..GOOD NEWS……..HSUS’ LAW LOST– and was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States….. this was not surprising, as HSUS tried to tell the courts that violent videos were different than other forms of violence in the media, and attempted to use a “study” claiming the study showed that “violence” against “animals” turns into violence “against people.”
[The allegation only shows that essentially, if a person is one that likes to beat up people, he/she might also beat up animals, BUT that alone does not mean that watching video or film violence, will TURN one INTO a violent person. In other words there is no scientific nexus proven here.]
Apparently, the Courts are finding that the HSUS laws are not even constitutional, so that means they are definitely unworthy.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
BROWN, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. v. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 08–1448. Argued November 2, 2010—Decided June 27, 2011
Click here to see case: HSUS Vio Vid Supreme 2011 [PDF to HSUS Losing Case] — HSUS got another lame California legislator to push this law, and an injunction was filed years ago to stop implementation; the Supreme Court has struck down the law as being unconstitutional. Many legislators do not even realize that the animal rights faction such as HSUS has other motives when they file lawsuits.
It is very unlikely that HSUS could rewrite the law without encountering significant difficulty since the movie industry and television all have incredible amounts of violence already. To single out only “video” games will not work.
Excerpt from the Supremes’ opinion………
…” Psychological studies purporting to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children do not prove that such exposure causes minors to act aggressively. Any demonstrated effects are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media.
“Since California has declined to restrict those other media, e.g. Saturday morning cartoons, its video-game regulation is wildly underinclusive, raising serious doubts about whether the State is pursing the interest it invokes or is instead disfavoring a particular speaker or viewpoint.”
[In this fairly blatant statement, the Court is saying that the HSUS law is pretty ridiculous to try and restrict video games while ignoring TV, cartoons or movies; further, the Court implies that being “wildly” underinclusive– by not even considering the TV or movies— it appears that pushing the case through appeal means that HSUS appears to be pushing their OWN viewpoint, rather than to see that the STATE is actually pursing the State’s interest.]
Understanding what HSUS is trying to do:
HSUS is attempting to gain court cases which will prohibit certain depictions of plausible “violence” in order to gain a foothold in the “violence” arena of depictions in media [such as in outlawing cockfight or dogfight videos] By doing that, HSUS will try and link any cases involving violence [with humans] to the alleged “violence” against animals.
Since most of the “anti-cruelty” statutes re animals were drafted by either HSUS or other animal rights groups, HSUS believes that they can push further laws for animals, by constructing them in the same way that child welfare laws are made. This has been going on for years and we are familiar with child welfare laws.
The other thing that animal rights has done, is to try to assert emotional loss damages upon the loss or death of an animal. Animals are considered property under the law, and emotional loss damages are not usually awarded for loss of property. Only a few states have awarded such damages, and usually in cases involving malicious or violent acts. In most cases, states will not make emotional loss awards for loss of an animal. Those type of damages are usually reserved for loss involving loss of family members/or family.
HSUS thought they could get their video case passed, but they had no chance…..and if you read the opinion, the Supremes CLEARLY stated, on PAGE 1 of the opinion— it even MENTIONS the U.S. v Stevens case……..”But a legislature cannot create new categories of unprotected speech simply by weighing the value of a particular category against its social costs and then punishing it if it fails the test. See U. S. v Stevens…”
HSUS’ main reasoning for having such videos labeled or banned as violent was basically to use that ploy so they could ban a lot of other animal related scenarios, or to label the “violence” of “animal abuse” into something that could be linked to children/violence. [HSUS did get their law passed against “crush” videos but then used that law to try and find Mr. Stevens guilty because he sold a documentary video on the history of dogfighting, which had nothing to do with crush videos; Mr. Stevens appealed his conviction and it was overturned, then HSUS pushed the government to appeal it, and HSUS lost the appeal in the Supreme Court]
Had HSUS been able to win both the Stevens case and the violent video cases, they could then try to create case law to start also banning other behaviors HSUS doesn’t want, such as transporting or displaying animals. And as we know, HSUS is currently trying to pass SB 917 which DOES ban showing/selling/displaying animals on public land. And the California legislature last year, LISTENED TO HSUS AND PASSED THE DAMN LAW. Very foolish.
Animal rights such as HSUS has also delved into domestic violence cases, where animal rights got the California courts to put the words ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DOCUMENTS (CA Judicial Council Forms, used by all California Courts) WHICH are pre-printed, and SAY ______________ animal needs protection and so-and-so should have custodial care of ____ animal due to the violence in the home. This is preprinted on the page of allegations of Domestic Violence for Temporary Restraining Orders.
Attempting to further push this issue, HSUS egged the California governor into getting the violent video case into court.
Con law professors and scholars knew that acceptance of the case by the U.S. Supreme Court was an indication that the Supremes were NOT going to let HSUS push the law.
Just as the Supreme Court struck down the U.S. v Stevens statute drafted by HSUS, which was supposed to be limited to “crush” videos — but in fact HSUS used it against Mr. Stevens for selling historical video on history of dog fighting. Petdefense has inside information on that case and take our word for it, HSUS knew that law was bogus when they got it drafted.
The fact that the HSUS unconstitutional statute was stuck down by the U. S. Supreme Court is an indication that the Government does not want HSUS, an alleged link to animal/eco terrorism, making laws and then going to the Supreme Court. Recall that many HSUS workers used to be employed by PETA. We rest our case.