Absurd Supreme Court Challenge on Animal Cruelty

January 7, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (8)

By Bonnie Erbe, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Ever heard of a "crush" video? Me neither. Until I read about a case in which the Supreme Court will decide later this year whether selling videos of dog fights is constitutionally protected free speech. 

Of course it is not protected. But let's get back to crush videos (in which small animals are crushed) for the moment. Congress banned them in 1999—and all video depictions of unlawful cruelty to animals. Good move, Congress.

Now the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia has overturned the law, ruling, in the case of a man selling dog fight videos, that dog fight videos are constitutionally protected free speech. What a bunch of poppycock! And even the Bush administration Justice Department, which appealed the Third Circuit's ruling to the Supreme Court, agrees with me (how bizarre!).

Apparently free-speech zealots are tied up in knots over this one. Heaven knows why. First, "selling" videos is a commercial venture, and the courts have always awarded less protection to commercial speech than to free (political) speech. Second, study after study has shown that people who engage in animal cruelty go on to act out their mental illnesses on people, so it's better to "nip" these fetishes in the bud.

A ruling allowing sadistic vendors to sell videos of animal cruelty would only further other criminals' future careers as domestic violence perpetrators and murderers. New York Times reporter Adam Liptak wrote

Before the 1999 law was enacted, according to the Humane Society of the United States, there were some 2,000 crush videos available in the marketplace, for $15 to $300 each. After 1999, said Jonathan R. Lovvorn, chief counsel of the Humane Society, that market all but disappeared.

But since July, Mr. Lovvorn said, crush videos have "popped back up on the Internet as a result of the Third Circuit's ruling."

Mr. Lovvorn provided a reporter with links to two examples, one involving a kitten, the other a puppy. May you never see them. 

He's right.

Tags:
animal cruelty,
animals,
Supreme Court

Reader Comments Read all comments (8)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

+1

soundtracks of AL 5:37AM July 17, 2009

I found lots of interesting information on www.usnews.com. The post was professionally written and I feel like the author has extensive knowledge in the subject. www.usnews.com keep it that way.

Payday Loans of AL 6:22AM May 01, 2009

What in Gods name does that have anything to do with animal cruelty. If you want to talk about aborton then get on one of those forums. Many of us animal lovers hear this from people like you. Many of us are anti-abortion, but we feel you do nothing for the cause with your stupid comments. As a matter of fact More and more I'm less likely to even talk about the issue cause of comments like yours. Get a life pal!!!

Margie of NY 2:30AM January 08, 2009

Bonnie Erbe

Bonnie Erbe

Bonnie Erbe is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report and hosts PBS's weekly news analysis program, To the Contrary with Bonnie Erbe. She also writes a weekly syndicated newspaper column for Scripps Howard News Service.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

advertisement