Constitutional Debate on Dolittler

So we've been having a discussion on the First Amendment v. Animal Abuse and video taping of same today at www.dolittler.com and hanged if the website hasn't crashed.  All who are interested in the Constitution should check it out when the blog comes back up.

Update: Doesn't look like Dolittler's coming back on-line tonight.  Think this link will take you directly to the discussion when it comes back on-line: http://www.dolittler.com/2009/10/05/Cruel.intentions.On.the.legality.of.animal.cruelty.in.pictures..html#comments

Here's what I was attempting to post there in case any of the readers wander over here during the night and want to pick up the discussion until it's back up and running:

Is this "profiting" from the image of a naked little girl or is it news?  Certainly there's profit involved.  I have no idea who owned the copyright to the photo (Time, the photographer, ???) but I've seen it so often over the years that it's burned in my memory.  Do some searching on the net and you'll even find that the girl profited some for this incident and the photograph.  It seems "profit" alone is insufficient as the basis for good reason.  Sadly, I have no doubt that some have a prurient interest in this photo.  Does that make it kiddie porn?  Apparently amazon.com is concerned about that possibility.

For those of you who just reading that and wondering how to get from animal abuse to kiddie porn, it's the First Amendment, freedom of speech...  Go read Dolittler when it's back up and I'll cross my fingers that all the comments come back with it :)

Night all, sweet dreams!

Go Back

Comment