Justice Scalia Stands Up For "People Who Like Dogfighting"

Supreme Court justices weighed arguments over a 10-year federal law that bans the creation and sale of commercially available videos that depict graphic animal cruelty, such as pit bull fights and tewomen crushing small animals with their feet or high heels.

Justice Antonin Scalia said that the court needed to consider "the right of people who like cockfighting, who like dogfighting and who like bullfighting to present their side of the debate." When considering free speech, Scalia said that "it's not up to the government to decide what are people's worst instincts," and as opponents of animal fighting may be more inclined to express their views than supporters, that "side of the debate is entitled to make its point as forcefully as possible." In essence, Scalia thinks the right of people to watch animals fight might be just as, if not more important, than the animals' desire not to fight.

Is it really a debate? Animal rights advocate Stephanie Ernst calls Scalia a "Champion of The 'Right' to Torture Animals." No decision is expected until next year.

Comments

[DappledSunlight]

Why do so few people get this? I detest Scalia, detest what he seems to stand for, and certainly detest dogfighting and the prosimians who derive sick enjoyment from it. That said, the people who don't agree with me have the right to stand and make their case, if they have one. You cannot make a summary judgement of an idea like that, without giving supporters the right to at least give their point of view. What's that old saw? "Freedom of speech isn't freedom for the ideas you love. It's freedom for the ideas you hate." Once they've spoken, go ahead and destroy their arguments. But tyranny of the majority is tyranny of the majority even when it's on the right side. Unfortunately, I have to hold my nose - preferably with a vise grip - and agree with the scaly one on this one.

I also dislike that this article doesn't provide any context. What prompted him to make this statement? It's just a decontextualized comment, which is always suspect, in my book, whether it's on HuffPo or Faux News.

[brady61995]

this is not jello wrestling on campus not that i think that right either. vick should have appealed is case he might got off. scalia really what is wrong with you?

[somsoc]

In essence, Scalia's posture proves that his ability to reason is twisted and beyond the pale. He abhors sexual conduct on video, much to the chagrin of Thomas, but because he likes to beat puppies to de@ath he thinks the right of people to watch animals fight might be just as, if not more important, than the animals' desire not to fight. His opinion on the 2nd Amendment in which he totally disregarded the "militia" clause as out of date, along with many others, has revealed that he is unfit for the bench.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/06/justice-scalia-stands-up_n_311735.html

[TiaLee]

I am just betting that the folks who enjoy this type of "entertainment" are the same ones who thump their bibles and exult in Jesus and his teachings. The same ones who believe that there is no "morality" with a "god".

I am a devout atheist who knows that there is something wrong with people who are entertained by the pain and fear of others. Scalia has something deeply wrong with him. A man with no moral compass on the Supreme Court? We are in deep trouble as well.

[RationalAgent]

These animals if they want their freedom need to earn it. They need to stop whining, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and engage in the arena of business and get a job if they want to escape the arena of animal fighting. I'm so sick and tired of these puppies and roosters blaming all their problems on everyone else.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Thank you Scalia for fighting for truth, freedom, and personal responsibility.

[somsoc]

Too bad Scalia did not have to fight a cage fight as a child, then we would not have to deal with him now.

[suntzu]

Interesting that Scalia's position does not take into consideration an animal's right NOT to sacrifice its life to please people with sadistic appetites. Of course Scalia's position would be that animals have no rights. Well, maybe animals don't have rights, but Scalia would have to prove that as an element of either statutory or common law. Where is the proof that animals do not have rights?

[seattle music]

Scalia is one sick puppy.

[Ann Joyce]

The cowards are the people that get off on this sort of cruelty.....

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/supreme-justice-scalia-needs-to-step-down-and-not-promote-illegal-acts-of-animal-cruelty

[fastfreddy57]

I see that the Scalia bashers are out in force again, as a supreme court justice he has a right to make statements and ask questions. This law should be overturned, the law is well meaning but goes to far. As an example a citizen of California buys a video of a mountain lion hunt, thanks to the animal rights people and the voters lions are now protected in California, this individual may be prosecuted for possesion this video. This is an extreme case but it could happen, this law should not even be compared with child pornography laws, there is no comparison between a child and an animal. I bet the liberals and animal lovers are upset because the NRA and ACLU are on the same side on this issue.

[seattle music]

We comfort ourselves with "a child is not an animal" but of course this is patently false.

Human beings are animals of the genus homo sapiens sapiens. We ARE animals in every sense of the word.

A gorilla who was taught sign language -- Koko -- tested as having an IQ equivalent to a five-year-old child.

Most animals feel pain, many of them have emotions (fear, grieving, rage, affection) -- only very stunted or very ignorant people cannot see the gray area between being a human animal and being (for example) a gorilla or a dog or a cat -- any social mammal will have evolved some of the same feelings that humans experience -- not identical, but very, very similar.

Just because animals are from a different species than ours, doesn't mean that we have cornered the market on feelings. We have not.

We have no right as humans to torture other creatures, much less to torture them in front of a camera for "fun" profit. That is beyond depraved. It's psychopathic.

[somsoc]

nosofastfreddy, you are so very wrong. Do you know what the term 'misologist' means, if not, look it up in your Funk and Wagnalls, (that's a dictionary). You are clearly a misologist.

[Drumbeato]

Time & time again, Justice Scalia proves just how much his opinion does not represent what mainstream Americans feel & believe. Ask most Americans how they feel about animal cruelty or videos depicting such actions & my bet is most would say they were against them. Only the lowest of the low, the sickest in our society would condone or enjoy such action. This opinion of Scalia's is most troubling. It is a window into the very soul of a man who has way to much power, and ability to impact all our lives, in negative ways. When freedom of speech crosses the line and hurts more than someones feelings, then this freedom is abused. One can't use the freedom of speech to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater for example, this crosses the line and is not covered under this protection. Neither should snuff films regardless of what creature is shown being tortured & killed. Animals have rights too, and we as the so called more "advanced" being should take the high road and stand up for the rights of those who can't stand up for themselves. Scalia should be ashamed of himself.

[CC355]

What cowards you libs are.

[lokipuck]

Yeah? How so, Braveheart?

[somsoc]

CC, take me on, give me the subject, I will destroy you on facts, not diatribe or fabrications like the right normally relies upon. Bring it one, child.

[roybattyjunior]

Wow, Scalia = pure class. NOT.

[ardeth2]

Uh, hello? Does Scalia realize that dogfighting, cockfighting and bullfighting are ILLEGAL in the United States? So how does he figure anyone has a "right" to sell or purchase videos of these illegal activities?

[ranchero42]

Take it offshore, Scalia. Don't bother coming back.

[mapoleaf]

What Scalia and others are stuck on is that children are humans, and animals are not. Therefore it's not "the same", which somehow makes it okay. Well I disagree. Video footage of animals being abused is no different than that of child pornography. If these judges cannot see that the posting of these horrific videos normalizes and trivializes aberrant behavior, stimulates copycats and perpetuates further animal suffering, then they are woefully uninformed.

[Paganus]

Sorry...my bad... Scalia is not Chief Justice...don't know why I said that...not that Roberts is any better.