Today, Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear a very intriguing and important case on whether videos of dog fighting—and other depictions of animal cruelty— should be protected under the First Amendment….or not.
To get a feel for the nuances of the case, listen to the rundown by NPR’s Nina Totenberg. (While Totenberg can at times get on one’s nerves, she is a wonder at taking a court case and explaining it in clear, detailed and lively terms that allow her listeners to form their own informed opinions.)
Here are some clips:
[The case] asks whether the government can make it a crime to sell or possess any depiction of animal cruelty.
The case is about dogfighting videos, but critics argue that it could apply to anything from photos in Field and Stream magazine or hunting videos, to Arnold Schwarzenegger punching a camel in Conan the Barbarian.
In 1999, Congress passed a law aimed initially at “crush videos.” These are videos of women typically in high heels crushing small animals, like mice and kittens — apparently a sexual fetish.
The law, however, has broad language. It makes it a crime to possess or sell any depiction of animal cruelty — specifically the killing, wounding, torturing or mutilation of an animal — as long as the conduct is illegal in the place where the prosecution is brought.
Enter Robert Stevens, a pit bull lover — or exploiter, depending on who is telling the story. He did not make any dogfighting films or stage any fights. Instead, he compiled films made by others of pit bulls fighting mainly in Japan, where it is legal.
Stevens sold the films commercially. He says it was to promote the proper use and training of pit bulls. His critics say it was to make money.
Read the whole thing. It covers the waterfront.
For the record, as much as I am a devoted lover of critters, and as much as I loath and revile practices like dogfighting, I think think the law is too broad and therefore unconstitutional. It should be struck down. And then, I hope, rewritten with more care so that it bans the kind of cruelty it intends—not, say, films of dove hunting or Spanish bullfights.
(And, yes, I did intentionally find one of the cutest and most manipulative possible cat pictures.)
and what a cute kitty picture it is Celeste. Reminds me of my own kitten Cuddles.
Next they will be banning videos of boxing, extreme fighting and football.
Love the kitten.
People who can’t watch dog fights in person depend on
exploitiveeducational films of them “to promote the proper use and training.” I agree with you, Celeste. Go Dawgs!That kitten makes me wish I had some high heels. I kid.
I just saw a pretty good movie called Amores Perros that has a few scenes of dog fighting. I know the director, Gonzalez Inarritu, was careful to avoid hurting the animals, but some folks were really angry anyway. Violence against animals, even fake violence, really riles people.
It’s illegal to “possess” videos of animal cruelty ? That raises a whole host of issues. Honestly, I don’t see any moral difference between bull fighting and the creepier things you allude to. There’s an apparent difference in that it’s culturally acceptable in certain contexts, but an animal is being killed for sport or entertainment. Even hunting has a utilitarian rationale, in that the animal supposedly ends up as food. That said, I think that overt acts of cruelty to animals should be outlawed. It’s more than a bit hypocritical in the land of Big Macs, but it’s still a reasonable attempt to set some limits.
It seems to me the ban should be on the making of any videos that are obviously being created to exploit illegal activity. The fact that the activity itself is illegal is the key to the illegality of making the offending videos. Follow that line of prosecution. Anything beyond that is dubious and, frankly, kind of a waste of time given all of the enforcement issues that exist around more pressing crimes.
“Critics said he was doing it to make money.” When some of the mortgage brokers and rating agencies involved in the sub-prime crisis are in jail, I’ll take the liklihood that he was trying to make a buck in an unseemly manner as grounds to prosecute the guy who compiled the Japanese videos. Truth is, that’s sort of irrelevant to whether or not he was violatiing the law, or whether the law is sensible.
The DA’s office has decided to prosecute Ofcrs. Amio/Ortiz/Samuel for allegedly falsifying evidence, and the PPL has shot out an e-blast reminding the public that they’re innocent until proven guilty, that they have to make “split- level decisions” and put their lives on the line for us, etc. This time I think Weber may be right, since the allegations (as you covered this story yourself a while back) stem from the fact that it took the cops 20 mins. (from the surveillance video) to find some alleged drugs, not instantly as they claimed; and that one was overheard advising the other to do some “creative” write-up. Frankly, it’s a stretch to jump from their to claiming they planted the evidence as the defense is claiming: if they’d planted it, it needn’t have taken 20 mins. Too bad for the image of LAPD, just as they’ve achieved such a remarkable turnaround in public perception as well as fact, and just as Bratton is leaving. I’m confident that whoever takes his place will take an impartial stance based on facts.
On the other big prosecution front, Polanski, I note that various blogs incl. LATimes now cover LAPD’s reducing the rape kit backlog as promised by Bratton/the Mayor/Weiss last October but there are poignant comments about hoping that the concern re: Polanski extends to all the unsung victims still out there (again a reminder that LAPD does not handle the DA’s cases, the laggardly Sheriff’s dept. does), incl. one from the mother of a recent rape victim. I’m sure she speaks for many – we’ll see. Maybe Human Rights Watch and other groups will use the spotlight for their cause when Polanski is finally hauled back.
Meanwhile, this case re: the pet “crushing” (how HORRIBLE) video has a write-up in the Times and no doubt more thorough one in legal journals: one of the judges argued that if it were humans being sacrificed and that were legal in some other country, and bootlegged here, would that fall under protected speech? You will no doubt get the whole detail, Celeste, maybe follow-up for us. A decision won’t be made for months.
Neb. woman accused of throwing dog at officer
I would have liked to have a video of that.
Is it okay to have a film of fishemen catching a 750 lb. shark? Yeah, I rather see that as confirmation that the shark was caught than know that it’s still out there and could have some person as its next meal.
Are videos of taxi-driver fights protected under the first amendment?
http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/local_news/manhattan/091005_Pedicab_Operator_Taxi_Driver_Brawl
“It seems to me the ban should be on the making of any videos that are obviously being created to exploit illegal activity”
I think any standard is going to have some weakness here, but I this one clearly doesn’t work. I’m not a fan of Cops or To Catch a Predator, but I don’t it’s creators ought to go to jail even though they are exploiting illegal activity for fun and profit.
Reg and one of the justices noted there really is not meaningful difference between dog fighting and bull fighting, but for historical and pet-ownership reasons we’re more comfortable with bull fighting. I don’t know where that leaves us, but I lean toward allowing these sorts of tapes even if they’re of terrible things. The exception is for child pornography for obvious reasons. My guess is the court will rule somewhat narrowly and say the law is too vague. We’ll see.
That’s an angle I hadn’t thought about. I guess the question I would raise – and this is just off the cuff – is that a reality show that was about the pursuit of child pornographers from an investigative standpoint wouldn’t be illegal, despite the fact that they were, in effect, profiting from some degree of exploitative or even perhaps prurient interest in child pornography. It seems to me that if that distinction can be made in one area, it could be made in another. But frankly, given the resources of our police departments, I wouldn’t make animal cruelty an area of pro-active investigation but merely process complaints and act on those that are easily prosecuted. My bet is that’s what actually happens.
“Exploiting illegal activity for fun and profit” Mavis, I don’t think that’s entirely true. All shows want to make a profit, that’s the bottom line. Cops actually shows what police do, it’s not some hair brained made up bunch of nonsense put out by cop haters on the web that lie their asses off about their encounters with the police. It’s educational to the public and to me it was a learning experience. One day the technology will be here that will allow all cop and public interactions to be viewed. Right now at my son’s P.D. a voice activated recorder goes on as soon as they start talking with anyone.
I can’t tell you how many times while watching Cops my son and I, he’s a young cop, have yelled at officers using terrible officer safety tactics or applauding when we see officers use their smarts, training or gut feelings in the correct way. These shows are a learning experience and I can say without doubt the best trained officers I’ve seen are from out here, the worst are in the South and on the East Coast.
To Catch A Predator has done a terrific public service with the amount of pedophiles they’ve not only arrested but identified as such, and brought this issue to the attention of parents who can use the information to keep their children safer.
The illegal activity being shown in my opinion has an educational value that far outweighs anything exploitative. You get nothing educational from watching a video of a dog fight.