This is the right decision. Law was way, way, way too broad. They'll probably have to go through this at least twice more before they get it right.
Nor do I support the prohibition of possession (and, perhaps, of the non-commercial distribution—which was not true in this case) of such materials, as I do not support many similar prohibitions.
Of course, nor do I support the crush acts themselves. Maiming or killing animals with blunt or crushing force should be illegal everywhere. (Or is there a legitimate reason such language is not appropriate?)
This is the right decision. Law was way, way, way too broad. They'll probably have to go through this at least twice more before they get it right.
Nor do I support the prohibition of possession (and, perhaps, of the non-commercial distribution—which was not true in this case) of such materials, as I do not support many similar prohibitions.
Of course, nor do I support the crush acts themselves. Maiming or killing animals with blunt or crushing force should be illegal everywhere. (Or is there a legitimate reason such language is not appropriate?)