Supreme Court: Dogfights v free speech

Generally speaking, ANY restrictions on the First Amendment are fraught with peril. I have the right to scream at the top of my llungs at Mark Silva, and he can do the same to me. Marketplace of ideas - a good thing. But...the exclusion carved out for child pornography (even owning it) is sound, and supports the reason for prohibiting animal cruelty videos as well. Two things at work here: the viewer of child porn has been shown to have a higher incidence of pedophilia; and more importantly, the child being depicted is victimized. Similarly, if the data can show that the purveyors of animal cruelty are more likely to engage in similar criminal activity, and the data will show that the animals are unnecessary victims, the law prohibiting animal cruelty depictions should be sustained.

Congrats, "mused". You've just given animals constitutional rights. Additionally, you've just given the same weak-kneed rationalization as used to justify drug laws which target inner-city and other poverty-laden groups: it can be [and has been, over and over and over and over and over again] that poverty-class drug users have a significantly greater likelihood of commiting street and property crime to support their drug habits -- thus "victimizing" society at large. ...and thus justifying our often idiotic laws against certain drugs.

Would you please try to construct an argument in favor of your personal bias that does not inappropriately elevate animals to the status of sentient humans AND which you care to think through a little bit farther? Thanks in advance.

Geez, I thought the headline read: Gunfights vs free speech !! Only in America !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

The animals in dog fighting are being tortured just as much as victims of child pornography. It's disgusting, and video distribution should be illegal. Torture is not free speech.

The concept of "free speech" seems to have been perverted so much that there are constant attempts to nibble away at it. But the problem is in how one defines free speech. Selling or owning videos of animal cruelty does not seem to fall into the realm of free speech, but should it be banned anyway? As disgusting as it is, I think not. However, the filming of animal cruelty and the subjecting animals to cruelty should be illegal. Animal torture is just that - torture. The filming of it is participating in the torture and should be illegal. The only exception would be if the filming was done to provide evidence or as part of a legitimate documentary about animal cruelty/torture.

Selling videos of crimes is not protected speech.

Individuals who show violence towards animals also have a high degree of violence towards humans. These dog fight videos are not the same thing as hunting videos, as the entire purpose of the dog fighting videos is to encourage pain and viciousness. The same people who conduct and film dog fights are the same people who butcher each other in the street. Dog fighting is strongly tied to a plethora of other crimes, including narcotics. While I am 100% behind freedom of speech, there is nothing redeeming in these videos - they do not express a viewpoint that has useful purpose in society and fall into the same category as child porn.

Animal cruelty is a crime. But what is animal "torture"?

Pure and simple, it is an axiomatic assertion culled from the emotional responses of individuals who feel pity for animals, and has no legal substance. The meaning changes from person to person. It is no different from saying "abortion is murder because I say so" ... which is the intellectual basis of nearly every anti-abortion screed going.

Drop the self-righteous "torture" line. When we start imposing the will of the masses based on the emotional impulses of those masses rather than the deliberative summation of their intent, then we have become a nation ruled by vendetta and vigilantism.

Let's try to engage our brains here: Burglary is a crime just as much as animal cruelty is; is it illegal to depict scenes of burglary? I'll bet you the victims of that burglary feel every bit as victimized as you would claim the animals here have been.

Wouldn't all cooking shows be illegal?
The court will not outlaw cruelty to animals videos because the remedy, (restrictions on speech) would cause more problems than the crime, (offensive videos that hardly anyone wants). I predict their opinion will use almost those exact same words.

To a great many people, there is also nothing "redeeming" about hard-core pornography, in any of its various forms and fetishes. And according to the same government that is now issuing dogmatic [sorry] "findings" on global warming and recently issued similarly dogmatic "findings" on terrorism, the dogmatic "findings" making a connection between pornography and sex crimes was also obvious once upon a Meese Commission.

Here's the skinny, folks: free speech means nothing if the only speech that we're free to make are banal blandishments. Free speech only means a damn when we are also free to offend and becoming socially "unredeeming".

... and it is illegal for neither selling nor giving away for free videos of crime. If it were, then "Cops" would not be on the air.

People who abuse animals often "graduate" to abuse humans. This is fairly common knowledge. I think that if these videos are available, the people who will purchase them are those who get a thrill out of the pain of other creatures. I feel that it is likely that if a study was done about this, the results would show an increase in violence from those choosing to watch the videos.

Additionally, this, unlike burglary, isn't about clips or videos being shown on the news. It's about people selling a purchasing videos for sick enjoyment. Not instruction, like hunting videos. Not part of the news or of a movie. Just pure sick enjoyment.

While perhaps it would be better to simply ban the filming of cruel acts would be better, seeing as the acts are illegal and the videos are still being made, this obviously hasn't done a thing.

Before cloaking yourself in the Constitution, remember, your rights to ANYTHING end when you infringe on someone else's rights - hence pornographic videos distributed without the consent of those in the videos is a violation of their right to privacy. And when it involves children, I hope you don't need an explanation on why those videos do not fall under 'free speech'.

Freedom does not mean 'do whatever the heck you want regardless of the affect on others'.

Freedom isn't free, and our Constitution also contains wording to establish what is reasonable and responsible, but most people never read beyond the Articles' titles.

Here's the skinny, folks: free speech means nothing if the only speech that we're free to make are banal blandishments. Free speech only means a damn when we are also free to offend and becoming socially "unredeeming".
*******
WRONG!
Under that guise, snuff videos, rape videos, child porn and host of other items become 'free speech because I said so' just as much as the opposite. The major flaw in that argument is the fine line between 'socially unredeeming' and 'illegal'. The public, in general, has just as much a right to free speech as it does a right to draw a line between 'what is free speech' and 'what is not'. Our society has ALWAYS allowed animals property rights', but only recently has it begun to establish what it will tolerate as 'civilized' treatment as opposed to 'barbaric'. Our laws are NOT caffeteria style. We do not get to choose individually what we will tolerate and what we wont. We do it as a collective and establish laws to protect not only our 'property' but our standard for valuing 'a life'. It flies in the face of our ability to feel compassion as our sense of civilization to justify an intolerable act as 'free speech'. It is much like saying burglary is 'performance art' and thus not against the law. It doesnt hold water. If you feel that your life and well being are going to be enriched by allowing animal cruelty, then I would suggest you move to where there are no laws at all and see how well you fare...

You are correct, Meg. But irrelevant.

People who abuse animals are indeed more likely to similarly make violent crime upon people. But the two are not the same. And pictures of one is definitely not an act of the other.

Just like poor folks who do drugs are more likely to commit street and property crime in order to keep buying drugs. But smoking a joint is not carjacking a late-model sedan.

Just like people in general who do "soft" drugs are more likely to graduate to "hard" drugs. But smoking a joint is not freebasing.

Just like people who commit sex crimes have been shown to really like fetishistic pornography using consenting adults. But watching "Behind the Green Door" is not kidnapping and forcible sodomy.

Tthis "graduation" is the excuse used by all manner of tyrants for criminalizing the lesser action, or in the case of pornography, criminalizing the *depiction* of the action as well. The answer isn't going to change just because you switch topic to Fluffy or Mittens.

Stop equivocating, and start applying your philosophies to ALL topics. Thank you.

Don't outlaw the videos - it's too tough to get around freedom of speech. Keep them available, so they provide law enforcement with additional evidence to break up dogfighting.

WRONG!
+++++++++++++
You'd be correct except that you aren't. Hey! it was 50-50; you took a shot.

The only problem with your tirade, "city guy", is that we are talking neither about burglary nor animal cruelty, but DEPICTIONS of them.

There is only one DEPICTION of a crime that is a crime in itself -- and that is child pornography. Now I'm sorry, but if you can't tell the difference between a burglary and a video *showing* a burglary, then perhaps you'd better not carry money on you when you go to the local theater when they make "Ocean's 14" -- you're liable to lose it.

If you can't tell the difference between a dogfight and a video of a dogfight, then you're in a similar boat.

The only "act" in question is the speech; if you find that act "intolerable", then it is perhaps YOU who should go somewhere more fitting that attitude -- like China.

Congrats, "mused". You've just given animals constitutional rights. Additionally, you've just given the same weak-kneed rationalization as used to justify drug laws which target inner-city and other poverty-laden groups: it can be [and has been, over and over and over and over and over again] that poverty-class drug users have a significantly greater likelihood of commiting street and property crime to support their drug habits -- thus "victimizing" society at large. ...and thus justifying our often idiotic laws against certain drugs.

Would you please try to construct an argument in favor of your personal bias that does not inappropriately elevate animals to the status of sentient humans AND which you care to think through a little bit farther? Thanks in advance.

Posted by: rwilymz | April 20, 2009 11:51 AM

You totally missed the point. This is not about elevating the status of animals. If the activity is illegal, is depicting and selling it protected by the first amendment? Is someone who participates in an illegal activity by filming it or otherwise benefiting from it protected by the first amendment? We prosecute people merely for possessing child pornography, even though they may have not participated in the acts. Why is this different?

Rwilymz, I simply meant that it is not a behavior we should be encouraging.

Let's take it from a different angle. Is it legal to make and sell videos of real humans actually being tortured, against their consent? No, simply because torture itself is illegal. Is it legal to make or distribute pornography with non-consenting actors? No, because that would be forced sex, which is illegal, as well as a breach of their right to privacy as someone already mentioned. Is it legal to abuse animals? No. If you aren't abusing animals, then you aren't making these movies. If an illegal act is being filmed, the film itself should be illegal.

In films where animal abuse is used to make a point or for some artistic display, the animal is not actually being abused. Science and instruction have to do with improving some aspect of our lives or animals' lives. These issues are not included in this debate.

In my opinion, free speech has to do with presenting thoughts and opinions. Animal cruelty is not an opinion, it is an illegal act.

There is no way this should be a protected form of speech. These videos should be construed as "obscene". The Supreme Court's definition of obscene is anything that is "utterly without redeeming social importance". The test is, "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest." Any non-sociopath would agree that the selling of images of dogfighting is obscene, so I think it passes the "community standards" test.
Regardless, even if it wasn't deemed obscene by the courts, the anti-dogfighting video law seems narrowly tailored to counter an activity that society roundly finds disgusting. Specifically, the law seems narrowly tailored to combat dog fighting, as it cuts off a potential revenue source for dog fighters. Since the state has a compelling interest in curbing dog fighting ("general welfare"), this seems like a no-brainer.

I wish they would publish the judges name it would surley help his career;lol.;. the sooner we are rid of people like him in our goverment the better.;;..;

You know, this whole issue is a lot harder than it looks at first blush. If the videos have “expressive content,” however distasteful, then they are entitled to some protection under the First Amendment. If the statute under which this guy was prosecuted is directed at the content of such expressive content, then the government will have a hard time defending the judgment.
.
I question the assumption of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that the defendant was entitled to First Amendment protection for hawking those videos. I don’t think the material depicted in the videos has enough expressive content to qualify as “protected speech.” Not all speech or depictions qualify for that protection. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that certain utterances, depictions and actions can have so little expressive content that they have no constitutional protection. Typical is the statement from the U.S. Supreme Court that speech may be restricted when its “utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.” (From Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572 (1942).) Based on this reasoning, the Court has withheld First Amendment protection from criminal solicitations and threats, child pornography, obscenity, yelling “fire” in a theater, and libelous publications against non-public figures.
.
I have a hard time divining the protected, expressive content of dog fighting and animal cruelty videos. For starters, whose speech or “expressive conduct” are we talking about here anyway? The actions depicted in the videos are those of the animals, which are mostly dogs, I think. Unless dogs really are granted constitutional rights (and I think rwilymz seems to be doing that by siding with the defendant), then no one else’s First Amendment rights are involved. (I thank you in advance, rwilymz.) To the extent that the videos can be viewed as the defendant’s expression of interest or enjoyment in ghastly cruelty for fun and profit, then I question whether they contain enough social value to be worthy of protection.
.
If video depictions of dog fighting or dog-inflicted cruelty were protected speech under the First Amendment, then they would be protected by the First Amendment if done “live.” Capturing activity on video, especially without any added artistic or expressive content, doesn’t give it more constitutional protection than if performed live. Taking it out of a video and doing on a stage (or a pit) doesn’t give it any less. But no one doubts that dog fights, cock fights and cruelty to animals are all illegal activities, or that the federal and state governments have a legitimate right to punish that activity. They also have the right to punish behavior that promotes and abets dog fighting, cock fighting or animal cruelty. These movies are no different.
.
One last thing: It is no answer to suggest that the defendant’s voice-over narration (if any) made all of the videos protected speech. In cases where protected and non-protected speech are involved, a government regulation prohibiting non-protected activity is valid under the First Amendment if it: (1) furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; (2) the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and (3) the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest. (See United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377 (1968).) Prohibiting cruelty to animals is certainly a substantial governmental interest. Prevention of cruelty to animals has been part of American law since colonial times, and it has never been challenged as untoward for the government to do so. The proscription of cruelty toward animals and the removal of monetary incentives to employ animals in cruel depictions is certainly a government interest unrelated to suppression of protected speech. Moreover, the statute under which the defendant was prosecuted contained exceptions for videos which are made for serious artistic and scientific reasons - meaning that it is directed at only depictions made only to feed someone’s base and cruel tastes. If, someone did an “artsy” voice-over of videos depicting child pornography or a “snuff-flicks” - no one would suggest that the voice-over would wrap the movies in First Amendment protection. Were it otherwise, then voice-overs or other “artsy” devices could always be used as a pretext to make legal what societies and legislatures have always found abhorrent.

If the activity is illegal, is depicting and selling it protected by the first amendment?
---------------------------
Yes. Ever see "Cops"?
===================
We prosecute people merely for possessing child pornography, even though they may have not participated in the acts. Why is this different?
----------------------------------
Read the article.
===================
I simply meant that it is not a behavior we should be encouraging.
-------------------------------
I would agree. But so what. We are guaranteed free speech and free press; if that is to mean anything then it means that "free" is actually real, in which case many, many people are going to be offended as a general rule. Your personal views of what that means are fine -- for you. But the second you declare that the definition applies to others you are being a nosy busybody. Or a tyrant, take your pick.

When free speech is limited to those which "express thoughts and opinions" then kiss goodbye 98% of television, including "American Idol"; virtually all radio except AM talk radio [dominated by conservative wags]; most literature and dance ... and the conjunction of literature and dance: pornography.

Some speech, like it or not, it for the simple purpose of titilation and excitement ... of the speaker or the listener or both.

And for the record, the assertions you make are incorrect. Ask Paris Hilton sometime if her video performance was forced; consenting to distribution is irrelevant. You are inventing facts to backfill your outraged opinion and form a basis to justify it and make yourself feel better about wishing to limit others freedoms by your self-serving attitudes. But you are lying to yourself and trying to lie to others in the process.

Dig it: your freedom means annoying others; others' freedom means you will be annoyed. That's the way it works.

Are they saying that depictions of illegal activity is protected by freedom speech?
-that is just horrible!
Also, they are saying that child pornography is illegal but animal cruelty is not? Having videos or portraits or anything to do with animal cruelty is not illegal?
This is insane!

First of all child porn should never be put in the same category as dogs being depicted in a fight on a tape especially like pit bulls. When so commonly in history this breed had the agression bred out of them because they were used for hunting other animals which is showed on historical channels if anyone care's to do the research(nobody cares about that or how we kill animals to survive/and clothe ourselves).Prosecution for possession are you serious, in what way has a person broken the law these depictions of pit bulls have been known for centuries portraying the pitbull as dangerous being specially equipped with jaws that lock and kill but still legal to own everywhere in the U.S.A and possibly kill any living being.The typical pitbull no matter what kind is naturally dangerous and preys on any living being ,but people still possess them why is that not illlegal within itself after so many deaths of children.

I struggle with the constitutionality of laws passed against dog fighting and cock fighting. Don't like either, just can't imagine a society that celebrates and glorifies injury inevitable sports involving juvenile children in a public venue, yet passes felony laws protecting animals from such on private property. Seems the 14th amendments equal protection clause is somehow mute. Just a thought?