Animal cruelty and free speech

[Maddie]

Its in headline news today, that, though its illegal to commit cruelties to animals, it is okay to display such graphic violent acts against them on video, as it would otherwise be a violation of a person's right to free speech ...

their free speech to say that they are sick and disturbed individuals, as something living and breathing suffers and maybe dies, at their hands, wouldn't that then also be the case as a 'right' for someone to videotape other illegal acts then, even murder?

How can it be illegal to perform something, but okay and legal to videotape it taking place as you illegally perform it?



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100420/...pphu-container

[LadyPain]

I couldn't bring myself to see what the video link was.

I think those videos need to be used as evidence in a court of law, no matter what.

[Maddie]

I couldn't bring myself to see what the video link was.

I think those videos need to be used as evidence in a court of law, no matter what.

yea I didnt look at that either Ladypain, but I had read some related articles about a thing called 'crush' videos, which seem to have been around for quite some time, they can't see the faces of the women committing the act, so they can't be identified, and people may 'own' them without being in trouble as long as theres not evidence that they intend to 'sell' or distribute them.

[GNTLGNT]

Oh Dear God! When things like this occur-you realize just how near the end of civilization we are!

[sam peebles]

Why not? They show videos of animals being cruel to people all the time on TV, have entire thirty minute slots dedicated to it on the Animal Planet, like When Animals Attack or something. Mother Nature has been throwing poison monkeys and flash floods at us since time began, but we start cutting down trees and fighting back, and she wants to cry "uncle". I say that we must never give in! Stop recycling you Benedict Arnolds!

Just kidding.

Of course I condemn cruelty to animals (and do not actually think comparing an animal attack on a human the same as a willful human attack on a helpless animal), and think recycling is good, deforestation bad, etc. I do wonder the logic behind being able to view horrible things happening to humans, and making it ILLEGAL to view the same in regards to animals. It's not that I want to see such things (I didn't look at the link either), it just seems strange to make it against the law.

I've heard of those crush fetish videos before, and assumed they were a joke. They sound so sick, I can't believe they're real, and I'm tempted to change my opinion based on their existence. Anyone who owns such a thing should be arrested...to me they are in the same category as child pornography and snuff films. But this is not the only type of animal cruelty film. What of some news network doing a piece on the abuse of animals in a circus or puppy mills? Can we not expose these injustices because they fall under the same umbrella of crush films, and therefore illegal? I of course still think the actually act should be punishable, but I do think the courts made the right decision in this case.

[Maddie]

omg, well now I have searched up snuff films, blech. I think that if people who own and are entertained by such suffering and twisted stuff cant be arrested, they should be intensely questioned and pressed for the source, and they should be studied, I think that people who enjoy this stuff are quite possibly as dangerous to society as the people on the films, whos to know when they will cross their fantasy line.

[Ubasti]

Animal cruelty "punishment" is way too lax. We need much stronger laws in this area. The obvious example here is Michael Vick, this case still makes me sick to think about. How can they think that some jail time brings justice to the atrocities he committed against so many animals? He should have never been allowed to resume his NFL career as, to me, that shows that the NFL doesn't see too much wrong with Vick's actions either. I know he was supposed to be suspended, indefinitely I thought, but he has been signed on with the Eagles and may be playing again soon if he's not already. You can go to a number of places on the internet and buy informational guides on how to fight dogs. This information should not be readily available.

This thread is the first time I've heard of anything called a "crush" video. How does this stuff get out for viewing. There need to be some kind of internet guards against things like this being allowed. Yeah, it is a violation of free speech to stop these videos, but as a nation we need to decide once and for all where to draw the line on free speech. This is only promoting cruelty to animals and nothing else. These people should be tracked down and punished to the absolute fullest extent.

[Maddie]

I saw this on TMZ a few weeks ago, about S Bullocks husband, or ex, hes being speculated on those same atrocities as Vic, one of his bikeshop pet pitbulls killed the other, nearly tore one of his legs off, and on the apparently leaked phone cam footage, he is in his garage afterward petting and talking to the one in a consoling manner 'aaawwww, Did you kill Rudy?' .... it was disgusting. I was going to post that here but couldnt find it, but not as characteristically shocking as an NFL player, but then again they are all still shocking.

Once there was a neighbor of my grandmother, we were visiting with her yearsss ago, and he had this huge dog pen with a mom dog and bunch of puppies running around in there, well he had a black pitbull too, had named it Herschel Walker after a football player, of all things right? we would see him out there, outside the pen, swinging the dog around by a rope as the dog was holding it with its teeth, that kind of stuff.

but late one night I kept hearing this dog crying and crying thru the night, the next day I walked out to the edge to have a look over there in that yard, and the momma dog, probably a bassett hound, was there in the bushes at a corner of the fence, and both her legs were, apparently chewed off... I knew immediately that the other dog did it, and how could it have come to be, I couldnt even imagine, but I called the Humane society and told them about it, I dont know what happened after that, but was sure the owner must have been part to blame, and enjoyed it.

[Tery]

This is reprehensible. When I saw that the Supreme Court voted 8-1 on this, I was flabbergasted. The only dissenting Justice was Alito (certainly not the one I would have thought). How on earth can showing video of animals being murdered be protected? How is it Free Speech to kill an animal and tape it?

The law that was struck down said this:

(a) Creation, Sale, or Possession. — Whoever knowingly creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) Exception. — Subsection (a) does not apply to any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.
(c)(1) Definitions. — In this section the term "depiction of animal cruelty" means any visual or auditory depiction, including any photograph, motion-picture film, video recording, electronic image, or sound recording of conduct in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed, if such conduct is illegal under Federal law or the law of the State in which the creation, sale, or possession takes place, regardless of whether the maiming, mutilation, torture, wounding, or killing took place in the State.

So I looked for the opinions and found this...

The crux of the majority's rationale for striking down the law provides the very reason why they should have upheld it:

When we have identified categories of speech as fully outside the protection of the First Amendment, it has not been on the basis of a simple cost-benefit analysis. In Ferber, for example, we classified child pornography as such a category. We noted that the State of New York had a compelling interest in protecting children from abuse, and that the value of using children in these works (as opposed to simulated conduct or adult actors) was de minimis. But our decision did not rest on this "balance of competing interests" alone. We made clear that Ferber presented a special case: The market for child pornography was "intrinsically related" to the underlying abuse, and was therefore "an integral part of the production of such materials, an activity illegal throughout the Nation." As we noted, "‘[i]t rarely has been suggested that the constitutional freedom for speech and press extends its immunity to speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute.’"

Prohibiting commercial sale of animal torture videos directly impacts the market for the depicted activity itself, just as it does with child pornography. The Court's rationale for outlawing both commercial and non-commercial distribution of child pornography applies at least as well to the commercial distribution of animal torture videos.

This bald oversight is incomprehensible, and yet eight Supreme Court Justices have utterly failed to uphold justice. There are no words.

[Becks19]

I think if someone is ever convicted of Animal Cruelty they should NEVER be allowed to own another animal. I couldn't watch this video either, I'd probably be in tears ( the mad kind ) The dog we rescued from the shelter is half pit bull/Jack Russell. I have to watch her every second to make sure her behavior is appropriate toward other dogs. I am glad we got her and not someone who would have abused her or used her as a bait dog. ( we have a huge dogfighting problem in Dayton/Cincinnatti area)