Animal cruelty and free speech
Are videos of dogfights protected by the First Amendment?
Are dogfighting videos constitutional?
(Latin Stock Collection/Corbis)
"Anyone with an ounce of decency should be tempted to ban animal-abuse videos," said The New York Times in an editorial, "but anyone with an appreciation for the First Amendment understands why we cannot." The Supreme Court should keep that in mind Tuesday as it hears arguments in the case of Robert Stevens, whose business, "Dogs of Velvet and Steel," sold videos of pit bulls fighting, and attacking other animals. Even "deeply offensive" expression is protected by the Constitution.
The 1999 federal law under which Stevens was prosecuted "is not only constitutional," said the Humane Society of the United States in Opposing Views, but it's "urgently needed to stop the abuse of animals." Videos of women in stiletto heels crushing or burning small animals—"like obscenity and child abuse—play no part in the expression of ideas." So there's nothing unconstitutional about regulating or banning them, the way we do child pornography.
Comparing Robert Stevens' videos to child pornography hardly seems fair, said Andrew Belonsky in Gawker. "Sure, dogfighting's cruel and people who watch the movies are not quite right in the head." But free speech is a precious thing, and we should always be reluctant to place new limits on it, no matter who ends up being offended.
Show: Oldest | Newest
14 Comments
Posted by Problem, Tuesday, October 6, 2009, 4:14 pm The real problem with the humane society's argument is that dogs are nothing more than personal property under the law. Destroying personal property on video is not, and cannot be, illegal. Personal property laws are in a completely different realm than obscenity and childprotection laws.
Posted by Problems, Tuesday, October 6, 2009, 6:07 pm The other problem with this argument is that children aren't specifically given rights under the law they have no real rights of their own. They must be protected by those with full rights i.e. adults so they aren't abused. The principle is the same here, no?
Posted by KH, Tuesday, October 6, 2009, 6:58 pm SO....in evolutionary thought, we're all just animals, right? So, theoretically, we should be able to have snuff films taped and sold. After all, we're all animals. And video games that depict people killing people or running them over in cars for points should not be outlawed in any state. In the end, it's all free speech, right? If someone wants to harm something, they should be able to do it, right? I mean, reallywhen was the last time someone was executed for taking the life of someone within the year of doing it? Why put them in jail?
Posted by KH, Tuesday, October 6, 2009, 6:59 pm Let's make a movie!! It's free speech!
Posted by Parah Salin, Wednesday, October 7, 2009, 10:20 am From Gawker: animal activists want to justices to prohibit all dog fighting videos in the same way it prohibits kiddie porn, which hardly seems like a fair comparison, but alright. Atrocious grammar aside, in what way is this comparison 'unfair'? Unfortunately, the author just lets it hang, and doesn't tell us. Is the abuse of animals for pleasure less of a moral hazard than abusing children?
Posted by AnimalLOVER, Wednesday, October 7, 2009, 2:20 pm Vick goes to prison for dog fighting, but someone else can video and sell the dog fights, because it is his right. So, if Vick had made a MOVIE about dog fighting and made big money, he would have been protected by the first amendment. Since he just made money from the fights, without SHARING a movie with everyone, he goes to prison.
Posted by Gerrie Pantle, Wednesday, October 7, 2009, 2:31 pm What ever happened to common sense and decency?If animal fighting is against the law then of course, filming animal fighting is against the law!You don't need a PHD, MA, or a high school diploma to figure that out. Animals always take the brunt of human stupidity.
Posted by Karin, Wednesday, October 7, 2009, 5:35 pm This whole arguement makes NO SENSE. If it is wrong, it is wrong. Abuse is wrong, whether it is filmed, or done personally.
Post a Comment