Dear Friends:
few days ago the international community has been surprised by a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which would the transmission of violent images using animals.
That ruling was generated within the case "United States vs. Stevens "and constitutes a constitutional challenge against the federal law criminalizing the sale of depictions of animal cruelty.
By a vote of 8 to 1, the high court held that the law violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment and therefore is inapplicable: The decision comes against the criminal conviction of Robert Stevens, who was sentenced to prison for selling videos of combat between animals, dogfighting known and others of similar nature.
This ruling has brought forth a series of videos that are not mere representations, it is highly cruel and violent images in excess of animal abuse, women in high heels crushing small animals to death by a sexual fetish.
Some say they are mere representations, others that it is real images, it is certain to be of a nature or another, both performances are derogatory and would put that expose the mistreatment of children and adolescents since it is not surprising to anyone that today we all have access to the Internet and curiosity often leads them to appreciate this kind of unsavory videos without any educational content.
Remember the movie called 8mm Nicolas Cage, which he referred to snuff movies and now being marketed websites and movies of this kind to animals, which is degrading and attenting mental health of the population.
Ecuador, after the new constitution of 2008, lives in a state of Rights and Justice (Art.1 Const), where the struggle against constitutional rights must prevail the most vulnerable, the most sensitive (which is called "weighting"), in this case to afford such exposure as regards the American Court, the violation would occur in a series of Declarations and Conventions ratified by Ecuador in favor of children and adolescents, without forgetting the called "principle of the child's best interest" mentioned in various laws, as in our Code of Childhood and Adolescence (Art. 11).
is worrying that this kind of judgments issued in the XXI century, where the state must have a greater interest in issues of violence and other evidence contrary to morality rather than an alleged violation of "free speech" that no sense and works to promote values \u200b\u200beducation in the population.
And you are saying?
Source: http://www.aldf.org/article.php?id=1327
0 comments:
Post a Comment