Crushing animals for fun and profit! A Supreme Court case

From here:

Quote:

---

The Supreme Court said Monday it will explore a dark corner of Americans' fascination with animals, whether the sale of videos depicting dog fights and violent deaths of small animals is protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.

---

Quote:

---

Lawmakers were especially interested in limiting the sale of tapes of fights between pit bulls and so-called crush videos that show women crushing to death small animals, often with their bare feet or high-heeled shoes.

---

Wow. Just when you though you had a bad enough opinion of people, something this pointlessly horrible comes along.

So, crush videos and dog fight videos. Free speech?

Does the state have a legitimate purpose in limiting how much suffering you can cause animals for your own pleasure?

I'm thinking yes, that it's okay to restrict the sale of videos showing the deliberate torture and pleasure killing of animals. Of course, then I run up against hunting and realize there's little solid distinction I can make between a crush video and a hunting video.

Name and shame anybody found involved in these barbaric practices.

Or, accidentally send their details to Animal Liberation Front websites.

We need to let these sick fuckers know that their 'pleasures' are not acceptable in a society striving for decency and non-corruptive behaviour.

Hunters don't prolong the process. Most of us have had a runner or two in our time, but most of the time the killing part of the hunt is over very quickly. Hunting videos don't usually depict the wandering around in the woods for three days part of hunts, and plenty of them show guys not taking shots because it's just not the time.

These videos OTOH are different. I know I'm a weirdo on this one, but I have nothing against dog fights. They've been happening probably since we domesticated them. I believe that animals are property and yours to do with as you see fit. I also find it to be disgusting and abhorrent behavior that tells of a sick soul on the inside of the owner and would never involve myself in it, but if that's what a guy wants to bet on or whatever, so be it, just keep it far away from me. I'd rather it have to be an animal than a person.

Watching it with no purpose other than seeing an animal hurt is kind of fucked up, but so it half the stuff on Redtube. People are sick and this, to my way of thinking, is more punishing the symptom and ignoring the sickness just like drug laws and gun laws.

I am on record as a lover of all animals, and pit bulls in particular, but this case has me scratching my head. Basically, I think there is an essential difference between doing horrible things to animals and distributing videos of horrible things being done to animals.

I am appalled that people fight pit bulls, and even more appalled that some sick fucks pay money for the "pleasure" of watching. The question is, would the benefit of banning such things outweigh the harm of allowing them to continue? I simply cannot see it. Altho I see a great harm in fighting dogs, the harm does not come from the production or distribution of films. If there was compelling evidence that banning such videos would effectively reduce illegal activities that involve cruelty to animals, I would feel differently. However, I've read a few articles about this and it seems there is no such compelling evidence.

Wow, Rule 34 really is a bottomless chasm of depravity.

Personally I've nothing against hunting (and am hoping to do some again some day). I don't particularly care for the blood sports but...

Hot Girls Wearing Steel Toe Wolverines Crushing Bunnies Into Goo.

Yeah, that's not something I want to see at my corner porn shop.

That's another thing, these types of videos have to be sought out, they're not in anyone's Netflix que or in the Employees Picks section at the corner video shop either. I think I'd be bothered a great deal more if I were seeing "Dogs Gone Really Wild" or "Hamster Stompin Mommas" infomercials every time I was watching some late night Comedy Central or as pop ups on my favorite web site.

Underground is underground and what happens there is none of my beeswax if a person isn't getting hurt.

I'm sort of coming from it from a 180º perspective from yours, Cluricaun - I think it's *worse* when animals are being hurt, because we have an obligation to protect animals under our care. An adult human can look after itself.

I don't believe in absolute free speech, so I would say make these types of things illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by featherlou

I'm sort of coming from it from a 180º perspective from yours, Cluricaun - I think it's *worse* when animals are being hurt

---

Wait, so animals are more important than people? The welfare of a rat or a dog is more important than a persons?

As I said, we have a responsibility to look after the animals in our care. Humans look after themselves.

And does that statement include perhaps children?

If it were merely a matter of what some people (well, almost everybody) would find repugnant, my quick answer would be, tough titties, it's free speech, people have a right to buy, sell and watch the videos. (Far away from me.)

But there's a key point: hunting is (normally) legal, as are the horrible things that go on throughout the factory farm-to-slaughterhouse industry. I think dogfighting is illegal all over the U.S., and I presume that in at least some jurisdictions, it's illegal to stomp chipmunks and marmots to death.

So I guess the question is whether it should be legal to sell videos of illegal actions. If I filmed ivan committing burglaries, and ivan signed a consent form, is it okay for me to sell the video? I've seen film of actual murders being committed; and there are those "Faces of Death" videos. If it's legal to sell that stuff, I don't see the basis for criminalizing the gerbil-crushing videos. The actual act of gerbil crushing should be prosecuted, though.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cluricaun

And does that statement include perhaps children?

---

Are you trying to start a fight where there isn't one? In her first post, Featherlou clearly said:

Quote:

---

An adult human can look after itself.

---

We don't expect children to look after themselves. That's why there are laws protecting them.

Domesticated animals are also unable to look after themselves, especially when in the hands of people who enjoy blood sport. Many jurisdictions have laws to protect animals in these circumstances. Personally, I think all jurisdictions should have them, and I don't think the fact that blood sport is a symptom of a societal illness excuses its existence. We treat symptoms all the time. It's called palliative treatment, and it makes life significantly better.

Should it be legal to sell video of illegal activities?

Well...

If I video tape a cock fight and sell it...

But what if the cock fight was in a place where such things are legal?

What if I see Chester Chomo doing his thing down at the local kiddie pool?

What if the 14 year old Mr. Chomo was fondling was his 14 year old wife from a jurisdiction which allows such things?

Should I really be video taping them anyway?

What if I see a street corner where a mugging takes place once a day so I sit off to the side, video tape it and sell "Hood Rats Gone Wild" videos out of the trunk of my car?

What if I video tape a police beat down and sell it to CNN?

I guess my point is, free speech is a tricky thing to define. In defending something useful and productive to society it is possible to inadvertantly condone an action so vile as to be unmentionable. Perhaps it is best to defend free speech and villify those who perform and patronize such activities, at least within such jurisdictions as where such things are illegal.

I may not agree with what you say but I will give up my life for your right to say it.

Years ago I read a study about how children that tortured animals were more likely to commit violence as adults. I don't have a cite other than I personally knew two separate guys that tortured animals as kids. One went to prison for kidnapping; the other for raping a twelve year old boy. There's more to this issue than animals getting hurt.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by phouka

Are you trying to start a fight where there isn't one?

---

Absolutely not, I like Featherlou and I'm not sniping or trolling. The mindset that places animals on an equal or even a higher footing that people boggles my mind and fascinates me at the same time. I'm always trying to learn more about something that so many feel so strongly about and that's absolutely so alien to my way of thinking.

The reason I don't believe in absolute freedom of speech is because I think some things are empirically, objectively wrong. Of course, I live in a country where a little socialism goes a long way, so maybe I'm not as in love with the idea of absolute freedoms as US Americans. Also, and this is where absolute rights of any kind break down, you must also have concurrent absolute responsibilities, and those can't really be mandated - they have to be self-policed, and that is the weak link.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cluricaun

Quote:

---

Originally posted by phouka

Are you trying to start a fight where there isn't one?

---

Absolutely not, I like Featherlou and I'm not sniping or trolling. The mindset that places animals on an equal or even a higher footing that people boggles my mind and fascinates me at the same time. I'm always trying to learn more about something that so many feel so strongly about and that's absolutely so alien to my way of thinking.

---

I feel the same way about people who don't place animals as equally valuable as human beings - I don't get how they remove themselves and the human race from the interconnectedness of everything on the planet.

And I like you too. :)

I'm with cowgirl and Baldwin on this. Banning the actual act of cruelty is one thing (and has already been done in most US jurisdictions, as far as I'm aware). Banning the videos of those acts seems like an iffier proposition and smacks of easy feel-good legislation.

Although...

With the dogfight videos, I don't think limiting the sale of those will put much of a dent in dogfighting, unless someone can show evidence that video revenues are a major driving force behind staging dogfights. That doesn't seem to be the case, based on my admittedly limited (i.e., next to non-existent) exposure to it.

"Crush" videos, OTOH, seem like a different matter. It would be hard to get any definitive data (how often does someone crushing a mouse without filming it get caught?), but if it could be convincingly argued that the people crushing these animals are primarily doing it to produce videos, then banning the sale of those video might make sense. I still don't know that I'd be in favor of banning it, though.

Disclaimer: I haven't Googled or anything else, but memory says that Mr. Clinton signed some piece of legislation regulating/banning crush video and media of that ilk. Or am I misremembering?

ETA: A little more digging, and the current case before SCOTUS is based on the original HR 1877 signed by Mr. Clinton in 12/99.

I think this absolutely falls under free speech; remember, it's not the behavior that's being legalized (although I wouldn't be opposed to that, or dogfighting, either); it's the video of the behavior, including documentary video. Sure, it's disgusting, and the people who do it should be ostracized, but I don't see why the government has to meddle in it. It doesn't even hurt anybody.

Oh, so all non-human animals are non-entities and are barely worth the consideration? Despite both activities depicting a callous disregard for the right to existence of other living creatures?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

Oh, so all non-human animals are non-entities and are barely worth the consideration? Despite both activities depicting a callous disregard for the right to existence of other living creatures?

---

Animals don't have rights, so yes. Of course, it should be a crime to do anything like this to an animal that you don't own, but that's not what we're talking about.

Cockfighting has been ruled illegal, as death is neither quick, or painless. Dog fighting has been ruled illegal, for similar reasons. Pigeon shoots have been banned in many communities, as some feel the birds don't have a fair chance at escape, as would a bird in the wild.

This isn't hunting, for sport or for food. I'm not someone who puts animals on an equal footing with humans, but there's no justification in being cruel to them, either.

[quote=Vox Imperatoris]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by "ivan astikov":2sydl8lh

Oh, so all non-human animals are non-entities and are barely worth the consideration? Despite both activities depicting a callous disregard for the right to existence of other living creatures?

---

Animals don't have rights, so yes. Of course, it should be a crime to do anything like this to an animal that you don't own, but that's not what we're talking about.[/quote:2sydl8lh]

We didn't have them until we assigned them to ourselves. Are you suggesting that those rights need not be extended to other species?

[quote=ivan astikov][quote="Vox Imperatoris":1d3i2fie]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by "ivan astikov":1d3i2fie

Oh, so all non-human animals are non-entities and are barely worth the consideration? Despite both activities depicting a callous disregard for the right to existence of other living creatures?

---

Animals don't have rights, so yes. Of course, it should be a crime to do anything like this to an animal that you don't own, but that's not what we're talking about.[/quote:1d3i2fie]

We didn't have them until we assigned them to ourselves. Are you suggesting that those rights need not be extended to other species?[/quote:1d3i2fie]

That's exactly what I'm suggesting.

That said, I wouldn't participate in any of these things myself—they're revolting—but I just don't care if other people do them.

I'd hope you'd be worried if these activities became 'mainstream' though, or would it still not matter to you? I know you have something about the right to "free expression" within your Constitution, but that shouldn't protect people who are willing to inflict 'cruel and unusual punishment' on another species for entertainment purposes and also make a living doing it.

First of all, the "cruel and unusual punishments" clause of the Eighth Amendment only applies to the government; crimes by one individual against another are dealt with by other laws. Even if it did, it still would only apply to people, not animals.

Sounds like nitpicking to me.

Do you think society will be better off or worse off if people involved in filming organised dog-fights and the crushing of little furry creatures by women wearing stilettos are allowed their "freedom of expression"?

I don't care, and it's not my role to enforce behaviors on people out of what I think would be "better for society". If I thought it were, then I would be a Fascist.

ETA: And I'm not saying that as an ad hominem; if it is the government's role to enforce behaviors on people to ensure a better society, then some form of Fascism (or Communism, I guess, since they're really very similar) is the only form of government that makes sense.

Do you object to the government's fascist approach to recreational drug use? Who would you consider more worthy of human rights: someone who injected heroin in their spare time, or someone who deliberately inflicted pain on animals for entertainment purposes?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

ETA: And I'm not saying that as an ad hominem; if it is the government's role to enforce behaviors on people to ensure a better society, then some form of Fascism (or Communism, I guess, since they're really very similar) is the only form of government that makes sense.

---

Is the government being fascist when it locks up pedophiles and serial killers because of their behavior?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

Do you object to the government's fascist approach to recreational drug use? Who would you consider more worthy of human rights: someone who injected heroin in their spare time, or someone who deliberately inflicted pain on animals for entertainment purposes?

---

Yes, I do object to it. They are equally entitled to their human rights.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Batman

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

ETA: And I'm not saying that as an ad hominem; if it is the government's role to enforce behaviors on people to ensure a better society, then some form of Fascism (or Communism, I guess, since they're really very similar) is the only form of government that makes sense.

---

Is the government being fascist when it locks up pedophiles and serial killers because of their behavior?

---

Sorry, I suppose I should have said "behavior that does not violate the rights of other people". The line is crossed when the government enforces behavior on people, not to protect others from them, but because they decide that it is in their best interest.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

We didn't have them until we assigned them to ourselves

---

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.....

We didn't get to perhaps appreciate them until we decided to assert them, but we most certainly did.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

Sorry, I suppose I should have said "behavior that does not violate the rights of other people".

---

The thing is that this behavior does affect something. It affects the animals being killed.

I'm not really that into animal rights - I don't care that Japan exterminates whales and I would love to go hunting some day - but I do believe that they should have some protections. Deliberately killing animals in such a brutal and violent way without any worthwhile benefit to society is just horrific and I think they should be protected from that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cluricaun

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

We didn't have them until we assigned them to ourselves

---

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.....

We didn't get to perhaps appreciate them until we decided to assert them, but we most certainly did.

---

Just because a politician said it doesn't make it reality.

Is a line from the Declaration of Independence supposed to hold more weight than say, one from Das Kapital or Beyond Good and Evil?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

I think this absolutely falls under free speech; remember, it's not the behavior that's being legalized (although I wouldn't be opposed to that, or dogfighting, either); it's the video of the behavior, including documentary video. Sure, it's disgusting, and the people who do it should be ostracized, but I don't see why the government has to meddle in it. It doesn't even hurt anybody.

---

I disagree; I think it hurts the people involved when they cause deliberate, unnecessary harm to animals, and I think it hurts us as a society if we tolerate it. As I said earlier, I'm not a Free Speech absolutist.

Just for the record, the Declaration of Independence means nothing to people who aren't US Americans.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by featherlou

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

I think this absolutely falls under free speech; remember, it's not the behavior that's being legalized (although I wouldn't be opposed to that, or dogfighting, either); it's the video of the behavior, including documentary video. Sure, it's disgusting, and the people who do it should be ostracized, but I don't see why the government has to meddle in it. It doesn't even hurt anybody.

---

I disagree; I think it hurts the people involved when they cause deliberate, unnecessary harm to animals, and I think it hurts us as a society if we tolerate it. As I said earlier, I'm not a Free Speech absolutist.

Just for the record, the Declaration of Independence means nothing to people who aren't US Americans.

---

I am a "free speech absolutist". In my opinion, the only exception should be saying something false that is intended to cause a panic in an immediate area, like the classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater", and even that has valid arguments against it (namely, that the choice of whether to allow people to cause panics in theaters belongs to the theater owner).