Dogfighting: The Movie
The First Amendment is getting a close look by the Supreme Court this session. I’ve already written here about the challenge to corporate “speech” and the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform laws in the Hillary: The Movie case. Last week the Court heard two cases involving the placement of a memorial cross on public property and the banning of “depictions of animal cruelty.” I’ll deal with the latter today and try to address the cross issue later.
United States v. Stevens arose from the conviction of Robert Stevens for selling videos of dogfights. Larry addressed the ugliness of dogfighting in his post here and I expect we all agree it’s a grueling, horrifying spectacle. Stevens was neither promoting nor hosting dogfights but simply filming them for sale. Ironically, Stevens received a 37 month sentence under a 1999 law that bans trafficking in “depictions of animal cruelty” while Michael Vick received a 23 month sentence for his actual participation in these events. Justice perverted?
The law was enacted in response to the distribution of “crush” videos depicting the actual crushing of small animals by women in high heels – a sexual fetish for some viewers. Need I say more? But the law was written in such general terms that it is essentially unenforceable. It applies to recordings of “conduct in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed” regardless of whether the activity was legal where it occurred. Under current law, since bull fighting is illegal in this country, the distribution of films depicting bull fights may be technically illegal. The law, however, contains an exception for materials with “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value.” Well, gee, that really helps narrow it down! Who decides what’s “serious”? Since bullfighting is the national sport of Spain, bullfights are protected as educational and artistic. So why not dogfighting or cockfighting?
The Court had a good time with the case, posing many of the questions I just noted, and appears poised to strike down this law. Ginsburg asked about cockfighting. Stevens asked about hunting out of season. The First Amendment is supposed to protect individual free speech and, with a few exceptions where the public good is threatened (obscenity, child pornography and direct personal threats, for example), the Court has seen little reason to challenge that right. In the case of animal cruelty, which is itself illegal, it is reasonable to argue that if the filming drives the event then the filming should be illegal too. Dogfights take place regardless of whether they are being filmed. The actual filming has little or nothing to do with the fight taking place. “Crush” videos however are the event. There is no live audience for the crush experience – the video is the event.
In a rather startling round of questioning Alito asked whether Congress had the
right to ban “a pay-per-view, human sacrifice channel?” The question supposes that, if somewhere in the world human sacrifice was a legal practice, would the filming and replaying of the events be legal? And, believe it or not, everyone on both sides agreed that Congress could probably not constitutionally ban that channel. I’m sure glad we cleared that up! Remember the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie “The Running Man” – well, it could be coming to your tv and it will be perfectly legal. And when it happens I will join Larry in dumping my tv for good! But as Scalia noted in one of his more poignant comments – “it’s not up to the government to decide what are the people’s worst instincts.”
If Congress wants to outlaw crush videos then that’s what they should do; but sending Stevens to jail for 37 months for filming and selling dogfights is ridiculous even if you strongly oppose the fights themselves. They are ugly, they are offensive, they are extremely cruel, and they are illegal; and I certainly support sending Michael Vick and his ilk off to jail for breaking the law. But I don’t see how filming and selling the fights can carry a similar, and in this case a longer, sentence. There are people who call this sport. I guess they are entitled to make their case. I have no interest in promoting animal cruelty; but even pornography is legal within established limits and under legal restrictions. I’m not clear on why dogfighting videos, and especially those filmed outside the country in places where the fights are legal, should not carry the same restrictive allowance.
I have old videos of bull fights and cock fights I have attended in Mexico, Frankly I know many will disagree on this , but I see nothing wrong with those two activities, but I respect the opinions of those who differ. However, when it comes to dog fight, I will have to draw the line—it unexcusable. I know dog fights occur in almost ever town in America daily and innocent little dogs are killed by their larger brothers, but in these case their are no cheering mobs watching the blood shed, but only the shocked owners of the poor losers. I love dogs and have little affection for chickens which in almost every case wind up in the pot anyway, so why not give our poor feathered friend a chance to have something to crow about. Raised on the farm and witness many barnyard fights–some to the death. Hell Roosters love to fight to protect their harem.
Ron Russell´s last blog ..The Law of Unintended Consequences
First of all, let me say to Mike that this is another good post. Very well thought out and well written.
I had looked at this case before, but chose not to write about it because I am not as familiar with the Supreme Court and it’s workings as I should be. I had no idea however, that Robert Stevens had received such a harsh sentence for only selling videos of dogfights, compared to the lighter sentence of Michael Vick. My wife just asked me why Vick received a lighter sentence and my only explanation is that maybe he had more expensive lawyers and they were able to cope a plea. My feelings about that is that the pitbull in the thumbnail for this article needs to catch the fella and see how he likes being chewed on for a change.
I’m sure Vick had a more expensive lawyer pulling strings but I think he probably got an appropriate sentence. It’s Stevens 37 month sentence that baffles me and makes the relative lengths of terms seem so out of whack.
As to Ron’s comments I’m definitely not the person to ask on the “sport” of cockfighting or bullfighting because I consider even sport hunting offensive. Hunting game for sustenance — fine. Hunting animals for the thrill of the kill — count me out. So watching animals have at it to the death — uh, where are the reruns of Lassie?
Mike,
Here, here for the reruns of Lassie. I could go for some of those.
Although I am a hunter, I do not hunt for the thrill of the kill. I would be lying if I said my heart didn’t beat faster and my adrenaline start rising when I see a big whitetail buck, but it is nearly the same thing when I see a whitetail doe. I like being out in the woods, mostly alone, where it is peaceful and quite. Deer meat is some of the finest meat in the world, if it is cooked properly, and Tammy knows just how to cook it. I don’t have to hunt to make sure my family eats, so I suppose you could say my hunting is about 50% for the meat and about 50% for the hunt itself.