Comments on: 3 Reasons Animal Rights Activists Should Support the Supreme Court’s Decision on Dog-Fighting Videos

By: Will Potter

Will Potter — Wed, 12 May 2010 00:50:57 +0000

Great column.

I think the most persuasive analysis I've seen is that some materials simply cannot exist without the underlying cruelty necessary for the production (child pornography, crush videos).

My concern remains in the case of videos promoting direct action. Many are sold by activists by profit, and they clearly cannot be made without the illegal acts taking place. Now, I think this is a much weaker connection than either the case of child pornography or crush videos, because direct action is not undertaken expressly in order to be part of a movie. But I'm not convinced that the type of analysis applied to this SCOTUS case couldn't just as easily be applied to films promoting so-called "eco-terrorism," particularly because the political climate regarding "domestic terrorism" is much more aggressive than the political climate targeting cruelty videos.

By: Brandon Becker

Brandon Becker — Wed, 12 May 2010 00:31:40 +0000

Julie Hilden, attorney and legal analyst, wrote a great commentary on this court case:

"The Supreme Court Strikes Down a Law Prohibiting the Creation, Sale, or Possession of Videos of Animal Cruelty: The Decision and Justice Alito's Powerful Dissent"
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20100426.html

By: Will Potter

Will Potter — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 22:51:56 +0000

@Philipsteir: Thanks for commenting. To be clear, I certainly don't feel good about the ruling, nor am I excited about it. And I agree that the courtroom banter was quite ridiculous. That being said, my reason for posting this is because I don't think animal advocates should dismiss the entire ruling as an all-out defeat, that there are some solid points within it that are important (particularly the third point, above). Best, Will

By: philipsteir

philipsteir — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 22:18:46 +0000

Will I really respect your writing and have been a big fan over the years. Still am. However, while I believe your argument here looks nice and sounds like a great analysis. It really is way off the mark on it being good for animals. It certainly may feel good for animal activists but it is thoroughly speciesist. I'm not sure if you ever read the transcripts but it reads like a pro hunting sitcom. None of things you are so excited about are really positive. This is a nasty decision and was based on speciesism and protecting big business pure and simple.
This ruling will make it more difficult to protect non humans now...FOR SURE!!!

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2010/04/cru...

By: Patrick Battuello

Patrick Battuello — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:23:43 +0000

Will, my understanding of the law that was just declared unconstitutional is that in order for a depiction (video, magazine) to be subject to prosecution it needs to be for commercial gain and/or not involve one of the exceptions. Nonprofits would not apply, and an animal rights group showing cruelty for educational purposes would be protected under the First Amendment. Each piece of legislation needs to be judged on its own merits. This one dried up the crush video market and, over its 10 years, had never been used against a hunting depiction (i.e., the Court’s concern about overreaching was based entirely on hypotheticals and not actual cases, as Alito pointed out). In short, it worked. The crush videos are back (following the Court of Appeals overturn in ‘08), and the abuse and torture will now probably intensify. Not all laws restricting freedom of speech are bad.

By: Jordan Halliday

Jordan Halliday — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 03:59:26 +0000

I misunderstood what the whole thing was about. I thought it was just general censorship of animal abuse. So my thought process was… If you censor the abuse of animals (ie: Animal Testing, Animal Slaughter, etc). Movies like “Meat your Meat”, “Earthlings”, “The Cove”, “Food, Inc.” and others would become illegal. Not to mention Undercover investigation videos, ALF liberation videos, etc. It'd also be just a matter of time before the government starts using it against activists, and not the people it was originally designed for…

However after reading more into it… I don't think people should be able to profit off videos where 'they' are the deliverers of the abuse. At the same time, if someone is releasing a video like that… they obviously are breaking the law (just by abusing the animals alone [with the exception of a vivisector/farmer filming his/her work] & would be charged anyway, if found.

By: » 3 Reasons Animal Rights Activists Should Support the Supreme Court’s Decision on Dog-Fighting Videos NEGOTIATION IS OVER!

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 20:15:19 +0000

[...] Simulposted with Green is the New Red [...]

By: Diane G.

Diane G. — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 01:49:30 +0000

Excuse me! Can you elaborate? You don't think they should censor animal abuse??? Where can I fine videos of abortions on the internet? I love those!! Now, do you agree that those also should not be “censored”? You can all discuss this, analyze it and defend it. Here is the bottom line…. The supreme court's job is to interpret the constitution. The founding fathers did not intend everything and anything to be protected by freedom of speech. The supreme court'd decision makes a mockery of the spirit of free speech.

By: jerryfriedman

jerryfriedman — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:50:35 +0000

It's not an either/or. The Court could have upheld the criminal conviction and also stated if this law was used against political free speech, that it would be ruled unconstitutional. The Court has been clever enough to make narrow decisions like this before and give Congress the notice that the law needs to be replaced. Instead, by striking this law down now, 'crush' videos have returned. In this instance, the Court has shown itself to be anti-animal.

By: ARguide

ARguide — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:16:18 +0000

The law was invalidated based on overbreadth, not vagueness. The law is very clear – it doesn't matter whether the killing is “humane.” The question is whether the killing violates the relevant state animal cruelty statute. The Supreme Court did not like that depictions of “humane” killings would be banned if they do not violate an animal cruelty statute, and this shows their callousness towards animals.