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?
Tags
advertisement
More for You
-
14 images of badass women who destroyed stereotypes and inspired future generations
These trailblazers redefined what a woman could be.
Throughout history, women have stood up and fought to break down barriers imposed on them from stereotypes and societal expectations. The trailblazers in these photos made history and redefined what a woman could be. In doing so, they paved the way for future generations to stand up and continue to fight for equality.
-
Why mass shootings spawn conspiracy theories
Mass shootings and conspiracy theories have a long history.
While conspiracy theories are not limited to any topic, there is one type of event that seems particularly likely to spark them: mass shootings, typically defined as attacks in which a shooter kills at least four other people.
When one person kills many others in a single incident, particularly when it seems random, people naturally seek out answers for why the tragedy happened. After all, if a mass shooting is random, anyone can be a target.
Pointing to some nefarious plan by a powerful group – such as the government – can be more comforting than the idea that the attack was the result of a disturbed or mentally ill individual who obtained a firearm legally.
advertisement

