“As Forcefully As Possible”
Print This Post
It’s not a matter of whether or not animals will obtain basic rights, like the right not to be tortured by sadists, it’s a matter of when.
We all have a choice:
Go down in history as a hero who helps animals or as a villain who stands in the way or social and moral progress.
Guess which one Justice Antonin Scalia has decided to go down in history as?
“People who like bull fighting, who like dog fighting, who like cock fighting … that side of the debate is entitled to make its point as forcefully as possible,” he said.
For more, check out:
- Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Animal Cruelty Law
- Animal Torture, the Supreme Court, and Absurdity from the NYT and LAT
Freedom of speech seems to be a whole different issue than what is happening in those videos. Freedom of speech does not protect someone who goes outside, punches someone in the face, and decides to film it. If someone commits a crime, they should have to answer for that crime and any evidence should be treated as such.
I see what Scalia is trying to say; you and I say animal cruelty is a crime and those films should be banned, and the person next to me might say that two men having sex is a crime and that THOSE movies should be banned. There are people out there who don’t think killing animals is a crime, as they still consume animal products. It is very hard, once a precedent is set, to rein in those who wish to make moral judgements against what you and I can watch.
That said, if we could put the issue to the public, chances are MOST people would condemn such cruelty. How might we bring the issue some widespread attention?
The depicted acts generally ARE crimes. These are things like crush videos or dogfighting. There’s no question about that. The question is whether or not the videos are ALSO crimes.
The side for criminalizing the videos argues:
The videos are commercial products, not free speech. Those videos have “no social or expressive value.” It’s similar to child porn and should be illegal.
The side against criminalizing the videos argues:
It’s free speech. It has expressive value or at the very least it is “not obscene, inflammatory or untruthful.”
The side that Scalia wants to feature is the side against criminalizing cruelty to animals. In my opinion, that side should NOT be allowed in this debate. That side isn’t arguing for free speech, they’re arguing for animal cruelty.