Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Animal Cruelty

During the case of United States v Stevens in which Robert Stevens was convicted of selling depictions of animal cruelty, the United States solicitor general told the Supreme Court during the request for a hearing that “depictions of the intentional infliction of suffering on vulnerable creatures play no essential role in the expression of ideas.” I completely agree with this statement because the depiction of animal cruelty is not a form of expression that should be protected by the First Amendment.
Going as far back as 1971 and the Cohen v. California case, expression was defined as speech that communicated ideas and emotions. The intentional harm of vulnerable animals neither displays one’s ideas or emotions, but is also inhuman. However, what the courts must distinguish is of those who do not commit the act, but simply view it.
We can draw connections to this topic by looking at another big court dilemma, child pornography. In New York v. Ferber, it became illegal for the promoting, distributing, and producing of material that contained child pornography. The law against animal cruelty is also very similar. Now, the law also is similar to the definition of obscene material established in Miller v. California in 1973. The part of material that lacks “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value” can be considered illegal, which crush videos were.
It is a question though, that what is the difference from a crush video from a Hollywood movie that shows a chicken being beheaded or an animal being shot. However, in my opinion there is very defined difference. The law that is in question states that animal cruelty is any “auditory depiction” of the torture or mutilation of a living creature. Hollywood movies declare that the making of films where animals are depicted as being hurt, are not real. Crush videos are definitely real.
Keeping with the film genre, what about documentaries that may display hunting or fighting between animals? I feel that there must be serious journalistic or artistic merit in order to film this. If it is part of nature, that is no question, but in terms of hunting and documentaries I feel that if it is validated by real significance connected to journalistic approaches or teaching then this speech is protected.
Are these videos obscene? Well according to Justice Brennan in the Miller v. California case, obscenity cannot be punished by an offense theory when it related to sexual material that offended community values. He changed his view to the act of consenting adults being able to view or engage in any sexual speech they wanted as long as it did not hold a captive audience or children. In regards to these videos, there is no captive audience and therefore adults should have the privilege of viewing and creating these videos.
The law is now under question based on Robert Stevens and his prosecution for making dog-fighting videos. The law is in question because Stevens defense is that he was filming the dogfights for a documentary and was not endorsing illegal dog fighting. In the exceptions listed above, a documentary could be seen as a serious journalistic approach to animal cruelty. However, another question arises of what counts as serious value?
Is the law overly broad? In one way. I think the law needs to be more specific on what is serious value because I think Stevens should be protected. I think, if possible, the law should be re-written to punish those videos or media that depict real animal cruelty for unnecessary purposes. When I say this I mean that videos, such as crush videos, that depict an unnecessary reason to harm or kill animals should not be allowed the same rights as videos that promote hunting or cultural forms of animal cruelty. So, to ban this form of speech the court would have to have a compelling reason and precise judgment on the form that the animal cruelty is in.
The law in question, which was made in 1999, does not forbid the viewing of crush films; it only forbids the selling, possessing, or creating of a crush video. The act of viewing one is fine due to the fact that most of them are not made in the United States, but in countries where they are legal to make. The videos are uploaded to certain websites and able to view by the world. So, how is it possible to expand the law to illegal to view crush videos? The fact is, that it is impossible. The rights to view crush videos that were legally made outside the U.S. is and should be protected under the First Amendment.
In the review of the Stevens case, I found what some of the judges said as very interesting. When Justice Roberts said that you “have to look at the content” which I completely agree with. I also agree with Justice Scalia when he said, “It’s not up to the government to tell us what our worst instincts are..Once you allow this law, what other base instincts do people have?” This a really good question, but in terms of the unnecessary harm of animals, government should able to punish inhuman instincts, actions, and also the images that display them.
Like previously stated, my view is based on the content of the animal cruelty. In the case of crush videos, I find the making, selling, and possessing any media that shows the unnecessary harm, torture, or killing of an animal is deemed punishable by the law created in 1999 because of its content. However, the law also is capable of banning material that does not display unnecessary animal cruelty as in hunting or documentaries that depict true journalistic value. In the Stevens case I find that he violated the law that was placed, but his challenge against the law is acceptable for the laws view of content is overly broad.

No comments:

Post a Comment