Protection of Animal Cruelty as Free Speech
- 1
- Add a Comment
The First Amendment has been cited as protection for numerous heinous behaviours. Trying to add to the list and seeking protection are some of those engaged in animal cruelty:
“In a showdown between animal rights activists and First Amendment experts, it appears the right to free speech might have an edge. Earlier today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in U.S. v. Stevens, the controversial case that will determine whether to revive a 10-year-old law which makes it a crime to create, sell or possess depictions of animal cruelty for commercial gain. The law was intended to prohibit the sale of disturbing sexual fetish videos, called “crush videos,” which pictured women in bare feet or high heels crushing small animals. But if struck down, it has the potential to also prohibit many other types of expression.”
link: Justice Scalia a Bullfighter? Supreme Court Explores Animal Cruelty
Undoubtedly, in the hands of lawyers, it becomes a complex issue. And constitutional scholars will point to the double-edge sword of the founding legislation and the fact that Lady Justice wears a blindfold. Sometimes, justice has nothing to do with what is right or wrong… or even common sense.
Catherine Forsythe
One Comment
Insomnic
October 7th, 2009
at 2:05pm
If you look into the issue further it is about the generalized nature of the language. It is very generic about defining animal cruelty as what should be made illegal - not specifically the crush videos.
It is expressed in such a way that PITA couldn’t use animal cruelty shock videos as protest, nor could training videos for meat processing or livestock processing be used. There’s also hunting videos to consider and even things like the Something About Mary scene where the dog jumps out the window following a ball.
Most of the debate on this issue is about the language - not the intent.