The notion emerged during opening arguments in the most important free speech case before the Supremes this term. As Adam Liptak wrote in the New York Times, "The case concerns the constitutionality of a 1999 federal law banning depictions of animal cruelty" Most of the justices thought the law was written too broadly and thus ran afoul of the First Amendment.
In defending the law, deputy
solicitor general Neal K. Katyal warned about putting forth an "endless stream
of fanciful hypotheticals -- reminding the justices that the law was actually
prompted in response to so-called "crush sexual fetish videos, which show
women in high heels stepping on small animals. Although it does exempt
materials with "serious religious, political, scientific, educational,
journalistic, historical, or artistic value, the Supremes worried "as they
should-- about allowing prosecutors and juries to decide the question of any
given work's "serious value .
Then Alito described his proposed -- and perhaps fanciful and hypothetical -- "Human Sacrifice Channel. "I mean, people here would probably love to see it, he said. "Live, pay per view, you know, on the Human Sacrifice Channel.
"To the apparent surprise of some of
the justices, as Liptak wrote, deputy solicitor general Katyal said the First
Amendment would not permit a law banning such a channel unless it could be
shown that the depictions made the sacrifices more likely.
Can't wait!
Coming soon -- live, pay per view " the Human Sacrifice Channel.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
