Will Dog Fighting Videos be Protected by Freedom of Speech?
posted by: Sharon Seltzer 126 days ago
One of the most important cases concerning animal rights was presented, October 6, 2009 to the U.S. Supreme Court. Solicitor General Elena Kagan presented a case that will have the justices decide if videos and other depictions of animal torture and cruelty are protected by the First Amendment - right to free speech.
The case is the U.S. v. Stevens. Robert Stevens was convicted of selling videotapes of dog fights that he produced in 2005. He later appealed to a higher court that ruled in his favor. That court also overturned a federal law that had made it illegal to sell or possess depictions of animal cruelty for profit.
The 1999 law was passed by Congress to outlaw the production of videos called “crush videos” which were popular on the Internet.These were sexual-fetish tapes showing kittens and other small animals being crushed to death by women wearing high heels.
If the Supreme Court rules to uphold the conviction of Stevens, the law will be reinstated and animals will once again be protected from people who make money from their suffering.
It seems like it should be an easy decision for the Supreme Court, but since the concept of free speech has come into question everyone from book publishers to movie producers, photographers, artists and journalists have gotten involved.
They have taken animal cruelty out of the equation and replaced it with their own interests that they believe will be damaged if Stevens loses. Even the ACLU has gotten involved.
The New York Times went as far as filing a “brief” in support of Stevens. They said, “The 1999 law imperils the media’s ability to report on issues related to animals.”
Media publications cite that they are concerned that hunting and fishing magazines will be censored and general reporting on animal issues will be limited.
Here are the facts that have led to this big debate.
- Robert Stevens, a self-proclaimed dog trainer, author and documentary maker was arrested in 2004 by Pennsylvania law enforcement agents after they bought three of his videos through the mail.
- According to the Humane Society of the United States one of the videos called, “Pick A Winna” shows dog fights with Stevens voice in the background “egging the subjects to tear each other limb from limb.” Another tape called “Japan Pit Fights” shows pit bulls fighting with each other in long drawn out fights that last more than an hour. HSUS claims that Stevens shipped three dogs to Japan for these fights where it is legal. And the third video called “Catch Dogs and Country Living” shows pit bulls being trained to attack hogs and then hunting wild boar. A gruesome scene depicts the dogs ripping out the neck of a pig while they are being trained.
- Stevens is tried and found guilty in 2005. He is sentenced to 37 months in prison, followed by three years of supervision.
- Stevens appeals to the U.S. Third Circuit Court which reverses the conviction based of grounds of free speech. It also overturns the 1999 Depiction of Animal Cruelty Law.
The HSUS, American Humane Association and 26 state Attorneys General ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and to allow “reasonable regulation of this commercial activity.” They report that Stevens has been involved in the world of dog fighting for many years and advertises his books and tapes in underground dog fighting publications.
Stevens and his lawyers call him a documentary maker who opposes dog fighting.They claim “he is an educator, and his subject is the history and status of pit bulls.” Stevens’ son said his father’s only crime is his lifelong fascination with pit bulls.
The Supreme Court has a lot of information to digest regarding this case and reinstating the 1999 law. Let’s hope they rule on the side of the humane treatment and protection of innocent animals.
Read more: animal welfare, animal cruelty, dog fighting, supreme court vs. stevens
comments
Dogfighting is animal abuse!
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
I get the issue now. I am obviously against dog fighting but I didn't understand the legal issues with the video. Thank you for posting this article.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Dog fighting videos are not free speech and should have no protection. The law already specifies the video, to be illegal, must have "no serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value." So I don't know why there is so much controversy about this law endangering the ability of organizations to report on animal issues. Hopefully the Court is wise enough to see the law, as it exists, has done a lot of good and already contains built-in protections.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
This is a step backwards for animal protection laws and it will encourage animal cruelty. Who ever this judge is should not be allowed to continue as a judge, he must sick in the head. I just hope they reinstate the laws.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
I wish the public television stations would advertise all of the animal cruelty cases that go on in the world to open peoples' eyes to some truths out there. So far, people are still in the dark about where petstores REALLY get their cute little puppies and kittens from...
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
I am outraged that the Supreme Court is actually considering this case regarding the dogfighting videos. Dogfighting is illegal in this country for a reason. It is one of the most vile forms of animal abuse. So, how could dogfighting videos be considered legal. Not all speech is free; there are limits. Allowing dog fight videos will open the door for other videos of animal abuse.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
I'm with you, Thomas P. If dogfighting is illegal (and it is, in all 50 states) then videos of it shouldn't be sold for profit to sickos who find it entertaining, the ACLU be damned. If those poor voyeuristic souls are so bored, maybe they should get into the pit with a few trained fighting dogs and see if that excites them. In fact, I recommend it.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
We all need to contact Amazon.com to have them remove all dog fighting equipment and video's. Yes, they do sell them. I recieved a reply from them that as long as it is legal they will sell them. I feel that a boycott of Amazon.com is in order. The Supreme Court's decision will decide if these objects are legal for trade. I can't understand why any legitimate company would even have anything to do with these horrible things.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
I cannot believe that this issue is wasting more tax payers money that it needs to be settled in court. Abuse is just that regardless if it's involving a person or an animal. How can people sleep at night knowing that these animals have no choice but to respond to their owners request. I say pass the law and make sure they never own another animal again. After serving jail time for their inhumane treatment of animals they would have to spend the rest of their life as a volunteer working in animal shelters.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
That is horrible even to think about that because the next thing will be that beating a woman to death will be free speech as well.
How anybody thinks that beating anything to death is free speech they have to be totally insane.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Facebook account:
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.
1268691