Free Speech Vs. Animal Cruelty

While this post doesn’t directly deal with literature, writing, publishing or ebooks, I feel that it needs to be addressed. I’ve been a very strong supporter of free speech – it’s the cornerstone of an open and enlightened society. However, with free speech also comes responsibility. That can be a thin line to balance. But in the following case, the line has been crossed.

There’s a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that is based on whether or not videos of dog fights should be banned, and if so, does that ban violate Americans right to freedom of speech. Here’s an excerpt from an article I found on Publishers Weekly:

First Amendment advocates were generally encouraged by Tuesday’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Stevens. The case, which many First Amendment supporters have called the most important free speech case in 25 years, involves the conviction of Robert Stevens for selling a dog-fighting video that a federal court found violated a 1999 law that makes it a crime to create, sell or possess videos and other depictions of cruelty to animals.

This is not only a free speech issue, it’s also an animal rights issue. I’m a huge animal lover and a vegetarian. Seeing depictions of animal cruelty is something I cannot tolerate on an emotional or even a logical level. There’s just no reason for it. One of the reasons why I became a vegetarian is because I refuse to support the U.S. factory farming industry which has a long record of inhumane, abusive and cruel treatment of animals that eventually make their way to dinner plates all across the country.

In fairness, I don’t think the free speech advocates that are hoping to see this case overturned are in favor of animal torture. Rather, their argument is that the law is way too sweeping and could have unintended consequences. For example, the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) often uses graphic images of animal abuse to further their cause. Issues of free speech are never black and white. Should those images outlawed as well.

Limiting the scope of the law is another possibility, according to the PW article:

While the Media Coalition would like to see the law found unconstitutional, there is a chance that the Supreme Court could find a way to limit the scope of the law without completely throwing it out.

On another level this case is ridiculous because dog fighting is already illegal around the United States. This has been seen in the most recent and high profile dog fighting case of football player Michael Vick. Furthermore, dog fighting is not a sport – it’s nothing more than abuse to animals so humans can makes some money off of it. Dog fighting is inhumane, cruel and barbaric. I seriously wonder about the mentality of people who enjoy this sort of thing.

My opinion is that laws should be passed for specific cases, like dog fighting. If dog fighting is illegal, then make any images and/or depictions (i.e. video) of dog fighting also illegal. Free speech should not be an excuse to throw our humanity and compassion out the window.

Do you think the Supreme Court should overturn this case, even if the possibility exists that it could make videos of dog fighting legal? Leave a comment below and share your opinion.

P.S. I was going to quote and link to a CNN article for this post, but the article contained disturbing images and graphic descriptions of animal abuse, so I decided to leave the CNN article out for all you animal lovers out there.

Related posts

• Various groups seek to lift injunction in Salinger sequel case of ‘Catcher in the Rye’
• Hatchette takes stand on text-to-speech functionality of ebook readers…kind of
• Despite criticism, ‘free’ is very powerful
• Gov. Blagojevich allegedly tried to fire paper editorial board
• Amazon caves to pressure on Kindle 2 text-to-speech feature, will let authors decide

Read More: Censorship, Misc.