Does the First Amendment Protect Dog Snuff Films?

It's only one disgusting degree removed from animal cruelty and torture itself -- someone getting away with claiming First Amendment protections for making a living by selling videos of animal cruelty and torture.

The Supreme Court will hear the case of a man appealing his conviction for selling videos of pit bulls fighting. A federal appeals court had agreed with him that while the dogfighting is illegal, selling pictures of it is not.

So go ahead, everybody. Switch on the DVD. Wow, dogs ripping the jaw off a terrified pig -- that's entertainment! (And that's in one of the videos this man sold.) Animal cruelty is illegal in every state in this country. It is a crime, plain and simple. To make money off a crime is to compound the crime. That's one of the many good reasons that child pornography is illegal.

So to declare these DVDs can be sold and distributed even though the acts they show are completely against the law -- you might as well do the same for human ''snuff'' films depicting murders, because that's all that these are. Snuff films of animals.

But we're expected to believe, "It isn't murder, your honor -- it's free speech!"

Congress has already outlawed at least some of this reprehensible trade. It passed a law 10 years ago -- a law sponsored by a California Republican congressman named Elton Gallegly -- to ban the sale of cruelty videos like the blood-porn ones showing women wearing spike heels impaling and crushing little animals to death with their stilettos.

So 10 years later, this is a free speech issue?

If the justices find that videos of these cruelty crimes are legal, even though the acts themselves are not, they will be winking at, even encouraging, what should be accurately and monstrously the cruelty entertainment industry -- all the dogfighting, the ''crush videos,'' the ripping and disemboweling of living animals, the unspeakable acts of torture and abuse.

Who cares whether it's illegal to stage these horrors, as long as it's legal to film them? Selling DVDs and images of animal torture, making money on websites showing this vileness, will only encourage more cruelty and violence.

Because, after all, business is business. The bail, the fines, the defense lawyers and the court costs for staging the illegal violence can simply be paid for by the profits from the ''free speech'' entertainment sales. Merely a cost of doing business. And the real cost is borne by the creatures. Welcome to Corporate Cruelty America Inc.

There is a vicious and pernicious lobby out there that's eager to conflate any opposition to animal cruelty as an assault on hunting. In public service announcements for the Humane Society, Rush Limbaugh -- and I cheer him to the rafters for this-- spoke out against dog-fighting, and praised the ''faithful stewardship of animals.'' Naturally, a couple of dozen self-styled hunters' rights groups have denounced Limbaugh for supposedly aiding ''the number one opponent of sportsmen in America today.'' Funny, none of the copies of ''Field & Stream''at my parents' house ever said anything about hunting and field-dressing Jack Russells. Maybe they let their subscription lapse before that issue.

This case isn't about the classic First Amendment conundrum of protecting hateful speech. It's about trying to pervert the First Amendment as a shield for murder, for a ''business'' built on the pain and terror and death of blameless and defenseless creatures.

Comments

[Project4NuBostonTeaParty]

Thanks, but I stand by every point I wrote; all are based upon the direction I expect the oral arguments to go. We'll have to wait until October (and an unknown to replace Souter), but I don't see anything in your argument that changes my expectations.

RE your first point: Did you mean to say "every single one of them would find this sort of animal cruelty aberrant"? ("NOT aberrant" didn't quite make sense.)

Second, animal abuse may be illegal everywhere, but we've all seen how well enforced the statutes are. In the rare instances when these cases make it to court, many people view them as a waste of time and money, including the media. In other words, it's a serious issue that gets very little respect or introspection in our culture. The Supremes don't strike me as open to a precedent-setting perspective here.

Third, the Court skirts issues where they fear to go. I'm guessing the ruling will pivot on a "free market" philosophy as opposed to assigning rights for non-humans. There's very little courage on the Court.

BUT, again, I am BEGGING for them to prove me wrong. As for Christians on the high court, my family is filled with believers who deeply love their pets, but they all seem to accept slaughterhouses and other cruelty as being necessary for the human animal to prevail on this planet. The Supremes are no different than they.

We shall see, won't we, in the fall.

[Vickster]

So let's say the Supreme Court rules against this man. What's to stop someone from using this ruling to keep a reporter who infiltrated a dog-fighting ring (or a slaughterhouse where downer cows were abused) from publishing their photographs and showing their film on the evening news? Or what about "Animal Precinct", "Animal Cops: Detroit" and other programs on Animal Planet that show the results of animal cruelty? After all, the people who work on these shows make money from animal cruelty. Then there are programs that feature, say, a gazelle gasping for air while being eviscerated by a lion. It seems to me that people who get off on watching a dog fight would also get off on watching a lion kill a gazelle.

[gayleg]

No! Holy crap, NO!!!

[Project4NuBostonTeaParty]

Does the First Amendment protect dog snuff films? It shouldn't. But don't expect much from this Court.

The majority of the Supremes are religious fanatics who won't be able to do anything other than base this ruling on their personal beliefs (although that is not the basis of this appeal).

There are more than a few Christians on the Court, and "good" Christians believe that non-human beings are on this planet to be used -- and the Court thus will see these dogs and their victims as 'non-persons'. This case then will philosophically morph from an issue of cruelty to an issue of The Holy Human's Livelihood and the Rights Thereof.

Patt, you and I call it murder. But I don't foresee this Court ruling anything other than it's a business and thus it's protected under the First Amendment. To appease the compassionate masses, in their majority decision they will make some weak concession to animal cruelty as being a legislative matter.

PLEASE, Court, prove me wrong.

[cruzy]

Your conflating several issues and making some wild assumptions to boot.

First, while I'm not particularly religious, I know several devote Christians, many who would be considered "conservative Christians," and every single one of them would find this sort of animal cruelty not abhorrent AND against their Christian beliefs. There is nothing in Christianity that promotes abusing animals. In fact, being a good steward of the Earth and God's creatures is a tenet of Christianity. Have you never heard of St. Francis?


Second, the issue is not whether animal abuse is legal or illegal. It is already illegal in every state. The issue is whether the First Amendment protects the right to dissmeniate depications of real acts of animal abuse. Also, whether something is a business has nothing to do with whether its protected under the First Amendment. Murder-for-hire is a business of sorts, but you cannot claim First Amendment rights to advertise for it.

Finally, whether this is a "legislative matter," or not, is not the issue. Again, the issue is whether the Constitution protects the DISTRIBUTION and production of copies of real depictions of animal cruelty (not whether it protects making these sort of films since obviously the actual act of setting up the events to be filmed constitutes illegal dog fighting which already violates animal cruelty laws in every state).

[Ppossom]

Murder is illegal, but TV broadcasts film of the crime 24/7.

[UnknownSoldier]

Fail

TV broadcast theatrical murder (that means its just make believe, not real, fake), these vidoes show actual cruelty. There is a difference

[SeaKitten]

Reality TV programs and "news" stations have shown MANY real life assaults, thefts, and murders over the years.

[TiaLee]

If Hollywood has to follow laws against animal abuse (and they do), why not these "people"?
The worst of the whole sick thing is that their is a market for it....

[cruzy]

The issue is not whether making the films is legal or illegal. The actual act of staging a dog fight is illegal in every state. What has happened is some pepple made these films and then sold the original to a company which copies and distributes it. The issue is whether disseminating the films should be legal or not.

[RubberBullets]

The people involved in this are sub-subhuman, and have nothing of value to contribute to humanity..... This judgement is completely ridiculous; so it's ok to promote and profit from an illegal activity, as long as you're not personally engaged in the activity? By that logic, child porn should be legal to own and sell, which of course is a completely vile and reprehensible thought. As is this.....

[cruzy]

That's the issue being decided. Whether to equate these films with child pornography.

[RightWingMarine]

should it be illegal to videotape any crime or just crimes involving animals or only violent crimes?

[jl4141]

The analogies to child porn and the stiletto-crushing vids are apt. Possession of child porn is illegal because the very production of it harms the child. The parallel to dog fight vids is obvious. And the stiletto-cruelty law? I don't know its provisions, but it would seem that this situation might be covered by it. I can't imagine this would ultimately be protected as free speech. A better defense might be that there is no law against it. And if there isn't, one should be enacted.

[sisterdebmac]

Sickest thing I've heard today. I seriously want to hurl right now. Or cry. Or scream. Or... something. People who would do this do not desserve to draw their next breath.

[gotborked]

You had me until "murder". Disgusting, wrong, disgraceful, and punishable? Yes. Murder? No.

[TheLearnedEnglishDog]

TO THE DOG IT IS

[Vickster]

Yep, until the dog runs down a rabbit and kills it.

Animals don't understand concepts like "murder".

[arvay]

Sadly, the First Amendment does. However, the police are free to conclude that the vendor is involved in a crime, and start digging for evidence. This is their job, and they ought to pursue it until they can make a case.

[SeaKitten]

Exactly. Good point. For example, if a reality TV show set up an assault of one person against another then that should be prosecuted.

[cruzy]

And it would be. Again, the act of staging or paying someone to set up either human or animal abuse is already illegal everywhere in the U.S. The issue is whether it should be legal to disseminate videos made by other people depicting such acts.

[overd0g1]

Yes, it does.

[publanski]

No, it doesn't.

[eukaryote]

Yes? No? That's what the Supreme Court is for.

[rektruax]

"The Supreme Court will hear the case of a man appealing his conviction for selling videos of pit bulls fighting."

"a man"? A nameless man?

[cruzy]

You can look at the Supreme Court docket if you are interested in the appellant's name. But, who he is isn't really important. The issue being decided is what is important.

[martymartymarty]

This is horrifying! Who do I contact to inform them that people don't want this to be legal?

[JohnFromCensornati]

Your congressional representatives, of course. The Supremes do not care about your opinion.

[SeaKitten]

Yes, and if it's a first amendment issue then this would require a Constitutional amendment.

[cruzy]

The Supreme Court cannot ethically take opinions from outside parties. It can only rule on questions of law and the evidence before it. That applies whether the Court is "liberal" or "conservative." Also, if the Supreme Court decides that the First Amendment offers protection, than absent a Constitutional Amendment (takes a long time and nearly impossible to pass), there is nothing any Congressional representative can do.