Dog Fighting Case
From Zanecorpwiki
On October 7th, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case involving the sale of dog fight videos. In 1999, Congress passed a law originally targeting "Crush" videos in which bare foot women would crush small animals with their feet. The law made it illegal to possess, sell, or distribute videos which depicted acts of unlawful cruelty to animals. The law requires that the video be for commercial gain and carves out huge exceptions for any depiction with "religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value."
All this means that the only videos which are illegal are those with commercial intent whose sole purpose is to depict an unlawful act itself.
When I first heard of this case, I was split. I donate monthly to the ACLU and believe strongly in the First Amendment. The basis of the defense is Free Speech, and exceptions to Free Speech are always to be considered with the utmost gravity.
At the same time, I also donate to the Humane Society monthly, and the law has killed the reprehensible Crush videos.
While I believe that we, as a society, should staunchly support free speech, I also believe that absolutes are few and far between. Free Speech is meant to allow me to express my values, but it does not allow me to infringe on the rights of others. To my mind, if the underlying act is itself unlawful, rejected by society as something we do not allow, then how should the depiction of the act for no purpose other than depicting the act be lawful?
If no exception is created here, then it would, for instance, be lawful to film a murder, or rape, or whatever and sell that video. If child pornography is illegal on the basis that the underlying act depicted is illegal, then how is it that animal cruelty should not be illegal?
The answer, of course, revolves around the question whether animals have rights or not. To this point, I would say that all rights are a creation of the law. Flowery language aside, it is perfectly possible for me to kill someone so the idea that "life" is an "inalienable right" is demonstrable false. Even within the law, we allow for execution, so I submit that, in fact, rights are simply what we as a society protect. We get to define them.
The maturation and progression of a society, to some extent, involves the expansion of those rights. Just as a child may abuse an animal because they don't know any better, it is understandable that an immature society does not grant rights to animals. One would expect that as the child matures, they come to understand that cruelty for the sake of pleasure is detrimental to the self and to others and it should not be done. To expect and even demand that society follow the same path seems only natural.
