Dogfighting Videos Protected as Free Speech Under 1st Amendment?
Dogfighting is against the law in the United States, and the great majority of people, except for a small number of individuals involved in illegal dogfighting, consider it morally wrong.
But what about videos of dogfighting?
It's not something most people would want to watch, but should those videos be protected as free speech under the First Amendment? It's a question the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to answer.
The case in question involves a man named Robert Stevens. He did not participate in actual dogfighting, yet he compiled and sold videos of the actual fighting. That act alone got him convicted under a 1999 law that bans trafficking in "depictions of animal cruelty." He was sentenced to 37 months in prison. But last year a federal appeals court overturned the conviction on First Amendment grounds.
The bill was originally designed to address what a U.S. House report called “a very specific sexual fetish" -- videos of women crushing small animals. Even when President Clinton signed the bill, he expressed reservations prompted by the First Amendment and instructed the Justice Department to limit prosecutions to “wanton cruelty to animals designed to appeal to a prurient interest in sex.” But the Bush Justice Department pursued at least three prosecutions for the sale of dogfighting videos, including Stevens.
At his trial, experts for the defense said the videos had educational and historical value, noting that much of the footage came from Japan, where dogfighting is legal. A veterinarian who testified for the prosecution disputed that, saying the videos depicted terrible suffering, including scenes of dogs that were “bitten, ripped and torn” and “screaming in pain.”
Another video shows pit bulls being trained to attack hogs and then hunting wild boar. Stevens participated in the hunting and filmed parts of that video. The encounters are brutal and bloody. But so are some encounters between animals and their prey shown on nature documentaries that air regularly on television.
Stevens' brief for the Court says:
“While acts of animal cruelty have long been outlawed, there have never been any laws against speech depicting the killing or wounding of animals from the time of the First Amendment’s adoption through the intervening two centuries.”
The brief also points out Stevens’ sentence was 14 months longer than Michael Vick's, who actually ran a dogfighting ring.
The Supreme Court will hear the case on October 6. The Court is in a position to rule that a particular type of expression is so vile, that it doesn't deserve protection under the First Amendment. The last time it did that was in 1982, when it outlawed child pornography.
Stevens would not comment for a story by The New York Times. But his son told the newspaper his father has had a longtime fascination with pit bulls. "You couldn’t treat a dog any better,” Michael Stevens said, “than my father treats pit bull dogs.”
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
For the government to eliminate the sale or use of video that show acts of animal cruelty would simply open up a door for animal rights groups to move forward with their cause. Americans need to stop thinking about animals for a second and focus on the liberties they lose when bringing animal laws into play. This would open up a door for the banishment of hunting videos and magazines, etc. Without hunters the world would be over populated with animals. Their would be dead dear laying all over the highway with insurance rates through the roof. It would probably effect Bull riding as well, since a bull is basically doing something he doesn't want to according to animal rights nuts. How are we to know an animal does not like what he is or isn't doing? How do we know Beagles love to chase rabbits? Because they do it? Pitbulls were bred to fight, and thats what they do. Now beef cattle have it the worst, they are confined to a small area their whole life until they are slaughterd and eaten. If you look you can find educational video on this as well. Americans are hypocrites who find it okay to be cruel to some animals but not to others, lord forbid something happens to a cat or dog they will be calling for the death penalty on someone. If it were popular to fight fish or hampsters I doubt anyone would really care, kinda like cockfighting. It's really no big deal because none of you have became attached to roosters or learned to know them by keeping them as companions in your home, but for a person who has then it's a big deal. The word "humane" stands for human, so stop trying to give animals rights that will take from human rights. Pretty soon eating meat will be banned, along with hunting and fishing. Or if a dog or cat is hit by a car you could face manslaughter charges as if it was a child running across the road. When thousands of deer are killed with razor shape arrows every year while looking for food it seems to be the norm with society, but lord forbid you hear of a man shooting a dog with an arrow, people would want to see him hang. You people kill me. To say dogfighting is cruel, then think about what fishing is. Can you imagine if I came up with a sport where I had a big pole and hook with a chunk of steak on it, and I used it in the alley to snag stray dogs? Americans would lose their minds!!!! Yet it is okay to do to fish, then make magazines and videos about it. lol What hypocrites! I am an American, and it's sad to see that my civil rights may one day be gone due to naive suburbanites and tree-huggers.
A problem I have with Stevens is that he made money off his videos. They weren't just home movies shot for personal use, nor were they filmed for legitimate educational or animal protection purposes. But if the SC decides to to rule against him, are PETA , SHARK, the HSUS and other advocacy groups with their undercover videos of animal abuse next in line for prosecution? That would set a very bad precedent.
But it does nto protect you if you falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater, causing injury.
I think the court will find that Mr. Stevens' behavior did violate the 1999 law by selling the videos where the act they depicted was illegal that it was not protected by the 1st Amendment.
I think it is also patently unfair and a miscarriage of justice that his sentence was 14 months longer than Vick's.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Speech is not protected if it is directly connected to a crime . Dog fighting is a crime and the producer had to have an arrangement with the criminals in order to film the dog fights. It is not protected speech but it is important to understand the difference, so that there isn't a chilling effect on free speech . The sentence was harsh but that is the chance you take. One judge or jury will not rule the same as another.
Complicit in the dog fighting? That seems to be what you are hinting when you say "Dog fighting is a crime and the producer had to have an arrangement with the criminals in order to film the dog fights."
Correct me if I am wrong.
You make a good point about different juries and judges and different sentences. I still think that something is wrong with the picture, though. I just don't know if it is a case of Vick being under-punished or Mr. Stevens being over-punished. I just do not see selling dog-fight movies as worse than personally running a dog-fighting ring.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Speech is protected unless it is directly connected to a crime . So anytime speech is being restricted you need to ask yourself what crime is involved.