On May 21 of this year, the Supreme Court agreed to consider a ban on depictions of animal cruelty. If passed, these depictions will join the list of things not protected by the First Amendment. Currently the list consists of “fighting words,” defamatory speech, obscenity and child pornography.
Apparently, there is a new fad sweeping the United States. "Crush videos" which depict cruelty to animals has begun to grow rapidly. The government is asking the court to revive a 10 yr old law making that makes it illegal to produce, sell or possess depictions of animal cruelty created for commercial gain. This is not the first time this law has been brought up. It was turned down just last year.
It all sounds pretty good on the surface. I am in no way advocating for the cruelty of animals. I am an animal lover. (I have to be or my sister the vet would kill me! :)) However, as the law stands it is too broad. It does include a clause stating that if the material is for serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value than it will fall outside the law. The judges say that as it stands the bullfighting videos in Spain will be considered illegal.
It seems to me though that by allowing a loop hole for artistic value, then can't anyone argue that they are artists? For that matter, any of the exceptions could easily be argued for.
The challenge to the law was brought forth by a promoter of pit bulls. Apparently he has created a video showing the right AND the wrong way to train pit bulls. The video includes clips of dog fights in Japan where it is illegal. He was sentenced to 37 months in prison for this footage. He appealed claiming his footage could be used for dogfight protesters, educaters and historians. Since the law has laid dormant these past few years "crush videos" have begun to sweep the Internet.
I agree with the basics of this law. However, I think the government should focus on cleaning up cruelty to humans before they focus on animals. What about all the videos of kids beating each other up? or child porn that is out there? If the government can find away to eliminate cruelty to humans, than by all means protect the animals.
For more visit http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=21505
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think the example of Robert Stevens and his pit bull video is an excellent example of how this law can go wrong. Having never seen the video and knowing only little about the case, I can't be completely certain he was not guilty, but from how it was described, it seemed he may have gotten an unfair ruling. Laws like these seem very reactionary. I think the media attention given to Michael Vick's animal cruelty case has maybe spawned a really intense public outcry. I'm not sure if this law has anything to do with the effects of the attention and backlash of that case, but perhaps there needs to more consideration given to this law and perhaps it would be better to not have a law like this rather than risk innocent people being prosecuted.
ReplyDeleteI really like the idea of punishing people for animal cruelty-the idea that anyone would make or watch videos like this is disgusting. But, I agree with you, what about the videos of people hurting people?
ReplyDeleteHello,
ReplyDeleteWhoa.. I can honestly say I have never heard of Crush Videos and was sad to learn that it involves harming animals. Because I was so bothered by this article I decided to search this topic online and I came across a useful and helpful that site that provides readers more information about this disturbing issue. Please check it out -- Pet-Abuse.com (http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/animal_cruelty/crush_videos.php)...With that being said I personally feel people doing this should be penalized like Michael Vick if you ask me..I feel he was very responsible for the situation that he was involved in and therefore, I feel people engaging in this type of cruel behavior should be fined and sentenced to jail if necessary.