Is It a Violation of the First Amendment to Ban Videos of Animal Torture?
- Posted by: Siobhan O'Connor
- on April 20, 2009 at 4:48 pm
That’s what the Supreme Court will be sorting out today. They will be picking up a nasty dog-fighting-video case from a while ago in which the two sides are pretty self-explanatory. On the one hand you have the freedom-of-speech argument, which says that we can’t be willy-nilly about our amendments to that basic right. Yes, in the ’80s we added a rule forbidding kiddie porn, but that was kiddie porn. Do we really want to treat videos of animal torture on that same level? And what happens when animal-rights activists try to argue that, say, slaughterhouses are conducting torture? It could easily turn into a free for all.
On the other side we have the possibility of animals being tortured and killed on tape, and then people making money off of it by selling them across state lines, despite the fact that all states already have laws in place protecting animals from the kinds of torture.
My kneejerk take on this one is of the arrest-the-kingpin-not-the-dealer variety. Meaning, we should spend more time and money cracking down on the people who actually mutilate little animals, or traffic in animals who are bred for blood sport, not the people making the sales of videos of said mutilation.
It’s a tricky argument both ways. What do you think?
DISCUSSION: 9 Comments
Commercial videos of animal torture should be banned. No one should profit from the mutilation of animals. Condemn both the kingpin and the dealer.health and beauty, natural beauty tips, beauty secrets
While benefiting from these videos is a shameful thing, it’s not as bad as the possible effect of adding more power to those who want to limit free speech. We’re talking about effecting one of our most important freedoms for what? Is the animal torture video business really THAT big? Or are there a few horrible cases of it that should be dealt with? Punish the people who did the torture correctly, and hopefully there won’t be any video to sell down the line.
First of all – “Is the animal torture video business really THAT big?” shouldn’t be the question. There aren’t THAT many kiddie porn videos either. We make laws to protect the minority, not the majority. Secondly, wemake distinctions for all sorts of random things. One can drive at 16, putting everyones lives at risk, but not vote for 2 more years. With that in mind, it seems totally possible to ban dog fighting videos while safe guarding commercial farming. With that in mind, right now I don’t really see the down side to preventing the sale of videos showing the torture of animals for entertainment purposes.
people who make these videos should be next to michael vick in jail.
@adog: My comment about the proliferation of these videos is more to point out the weight of the consequences versus the solution. If we give way to someone who wants to censor things, and it leads to further censorship, and a grave threat to freedom of speech, then killing dogs won’t matter anymore.
Rather than allocating funds toward policing of these hideous videos, it could be better spent on organizations promoting animal well being (animal shelters for example). Banning seems like it could be a slippery slope in this case. Once these images are banned, what’s next? How many different images (White house ban of U.S. solider coffins since 1991 included) are currently banned? This is some info. that I would like to see.
My concern with this is the way the law could be misinterpreted… look at the way kiddie porn laws have been enforced to charge minors who possess pictures of themselves. Animal play can often look like violence; could this lead to jailing dogs for possessing videos they themselves have made?
animals don’t torture each other for fun. people put animals in situations where animals hurt each other as a means of survival and people call this entertainment.
Anon, you ever seen a cat play with a mouse?