Supreme Court
I feel like I have to justify myself before I make the argument I'm about to make, because as much as I fully believe in this argument the reason for the argument hurts my heart more than almost anything else ever has.
There is a case currently before the supreme court regarding animal cruelty and whether or not it is okay to produce and sell films depicting actual acts of animal cruelty (actual as in not simulated, as in would not and could not have that disclaimer at the end stating that no animals were harmed in the making of the film). More accurately the case is about whether or not it is okay to ban the production and distribution of films depicting actual acts of animal cruelty. Now, here comes my own disclaimer. I am an animal lover. I have volunteered at an animal shelter and given money to the ASPCA and North Shore Animal League. Animal cruelty makes me sick. Hearing about this case, talking about this case, breaks my heart. I can't even bring myself to describe, as I heard described, the acts depicted in the videos that resulted in this case. Hearing the description of these videos made me want to believe in Hell. If there is a Hell, like Dante described, the lowest level of it would be reserved for people who harm the defenseless.
The case is a first amendment issue. The producers of these films are claiming that it isn't constitutional to ban the production and distribution of them.
The opposition is saying that some speech is already banned, namely child pornography, and that these types of films are just as bad and should also be banned federally, or at least be allowed to be banned by state and municipal governments. They also reference snuff films (saying that if there were snuff films that we were aware of we would and should absolutely ban them). Basically they are saying, yes we have free speech, but some types of speech are bad enough that it's okay to ban them.
I basically agree that some things are so bad that it's okay to ban them even though it infringes on free speech. I mean, I don't agree, but if it were up to me to pursue a case against the government for banning something like child pornography or animal cruelty videos, I wouldn't do it simply because my belief in free speech isn't a strong as my belief that it's wrong to hurt animals and children.
Having said all of that, the case has been brought, and I have heard about it and I have to make an argument because I have a compulsion to make arguments and because I do believe in free speech.
Banning the videos is unconstitutional. More importantly (to me anyway, and to other animal lovers) it's unnecessary. Animal cruelty is already illegal. The same holds true for snuff films and child pornography. Molesting children is already illegal. Rape and murder are already illegal. Filming illegal acts doesn't need to be illegal because the acts themselves are illegal. Filming these acts and selling those films (or otherwise distributing them) is actually remarkably ill advised since documenting your criminal behavior, if anything, creates a trail that might make it easier for the authorities to catch you. Regardless, given the constitutional protection of free speech, the animal cruelty videos can't be banned. Animal cruelty itself, however, can be (and has been in most, if not all, states and municipalities in the US).
There is a case currently before the supreme court regarding animal cruelty and whether or not it is okay to produce and sell films depicting actual acts of animal cruelty (actual as in not simulated, as in would not and could not have that disclaimer at the end stating that no animals were harmed in the making of the film). More accurately the case is about whether or not it is okay to ban the production and distribution of films depicting actual acts of animal cruelty. Now, here comes my own disclaimer. I am an animal lover. I have volunteered at an animal shelter and given money to the ASPCA and North Shore Animal League. Animal cruelty makes me sick. Hearing about this case, talking about this case, breaks my heart. I can't even bring myself to describe, as I heard described, the acts depicted in the videos that resulted in this case. Hearing the description of these videos made me want to believe in Hell. If there is a Hell, like Dante described, the lowest level of it would be reserved for people who harm the defenseless.
The case is a first amendment issue. The producers of these films are claiming that it isn't constitutional to ban the production and distribution of them.
The opposition is saying that some speech is already banned, namely child pornography, and that these types of films are just as bad and should also be banned federally, or at least be allowed to be banned by state and municipal governments. They also reference snuff films (saying that if there were snuff films that we were aware of we would and should absolutely ban them). Basically they are saying, yes we have free speech, but some types of speech are bad enough that it's okay to ban them.
I basically agree that some things are so bad that it's okay to ban them even though it infringes on free speech. I mean, I don't agree, but if it were up to me to pursue a case against the government for banning something like child pornography or animal cruelty videos, I wouldn't do it simply because my belief in free speech isn't a strong as my belief that it's wrong to hurt animals and children.
Having said all of that, the case has been brought, and I have heard about it and I have to make an argument because I have a compulsion to make arguments and because I do believe in free speech.
Banning the videos is unconstitutional. More importantly (to me anyway, and to other animal lovers) it's unnecessary. Animal cruelty is already illegal. The same holds true for snuff films and child pornography. Molesting children is already illegal. Rape and murder are already illegal. Filming illegal acts doesn't need to be illegal because the acts themselves are illegal. Filming these acts and selling those films (or otherwise distributing them) is actually remarkably ill advised since documenting your criminal behavior, if anything, creates a trail that might make it easier for the authorities to catch you. Regardless, given the constitutional protection of free speech, the animal cruelty videos can't be banned. Animal cruelty itself, however, can be (and has been in most, if not all, states and municipalities in the US).
posted by Beth at
10:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home