The First Amendment is the foundation of an open society. Two of the five protections guaranteed by the First Amendment -- freedom of speech and freedom of the press -- help ensure that we provide citizens with a "marketplace of ideas" free from censorship. Yet the right to free expression often comes into conflict with other rights, especially when it infringes on the safety or morality of others. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, for example, is not protected by the First Amendment. Neither is child pornography or material that is considered obscene in nature. This is why the First Amendment is not just a static document that was written by our forefathers over 200 years ago. Because society and technology change and evolve, the First Amendment is continually challenged by cases that need to be interpreted by the courts.
Click
here to read about a First Amendment case that is currently before the Supreme Court. You be the judge.
I think that animal abuse is disgusting and since we can convict and charge people on counts of animal abuse, how is taking a picture of it any different? this should definetly be illegal in my opinion, and those who are selling pictures like these should be arrested.
ReplyDeleteI have always felt that animal cruelty is horrible. This case really is not a contest to me. If Stevens really thinks that these are educational, he should be able to show the benefits of seeing an animal bruteally killed. And people who train animals for fighting really need to get a new hobby. Animals aren't there just to fight each other. That may be how it is in the wild, but in civilized areas, that shoudn't be the case. Selling pictures and having these fights in the first place, I believe, is punishable by law in most states. So this case should never have even made it to the Supreme Court; the verdict is guilty.
ReplyDeleteI've always hated animal cruelty, and I don't understand how something so brutal can be considered entertainment.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the government's decision to sentence Stevens to 37 months in prison. Distributing acts of animal cruelty, is inhumane and wrong. What is the purpose of showing a dogfight to a group of people, or a pit bull attacking a pig. In my opinion, it has no purpose, and is neither educational or humane.
I've always hated animal cruelty, and I don't understand how something so brutal can be considered entertainment.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the government's decision to sentence Stevens to 37 months in prison. Distributing acts of animal cruelty, is inhumane and wrong. What is the purpose of showing a dogfight to a group of people, or a pit bull attacking a pig. In my opinion, it has no purpose, and is neither educational or humane.
I beleive that all animal cruelty is downright wrong. I can't imagine that anyone would WANT to watch animals being tourtured and killed. I think that this practice should be outlawed. Even though this may not be on the same level as child pornography, it is still inhumane. Every creature should be treated with respect.
ReplyDeleteWell... I know this will sound callous and no doubt get everyone upset with me, but I think we really have more important things to deal with than this. Also, the Constitution does not apply to animals, so that may end up being a loop-hole in this case. Maybe I'm just missing the point, but I really don't see how it would be reasonable to ban animal cruelty videos. There's that one documentary on Animal Planet about abused chimps. Yeah, that would be off-air. I'm not saying it's wonderful that these animals are being abused, but if you can use that footage to protest the abuse, you may convince others that it's wrong.
ReplyDeleteI apologize if that post didn't make much sense, but I honestly didn't see how the issue truly pertains to the First Amendment. That is all.
I think that animal abuse is very wrong and disgusting! People who post videos and pictures should be arrested or some how punushed because putting animals through this torture is inhuman. the government should enforce that law and help the animals who had gone through this torture.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do agree that animal cruelty is undoubtedly wrong, I think the government should be careful about passing this law. A good point was made in the article about the fact that child pornography is something terrible that happens once, and each time it is shared, it's like the event is happening again for the child in question. The sale and profit of child pornography affects the child for the rest of their life. However, with animals, if one terrible event such as abusive behavior or even death occurs, and is caught on tape, the viewing of the tape would not further hurt the animal in any way; so, producing and promoting this footage cannot be used for further harm. The question here was never debating the righteousness of animal abuse, only the further publication of abusive footage. This footage, if banned, would have to be banned for everyone, meaning protesters and animal rights movements would not have access to pivotal information. This law should not be put into place without heavy consideration and should perhaps be left out completely.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with what Elaina said, animal cruelty is inhumane and wrong, but that is not what this case is trying to justify. The case is focused more on the exploitation of pictures and videos of animal abuse. I know that if you log onto peta.org, an organization set up to promote animal rights, you can often find videos of animals being abused or even slaughtered. The videos are used to help viewers really understand what happens to animals when they are being slaughtered for food or skinned for fur and help viewers protest the abuse. I think that if used to help animal rights, the videos should be permitted. However, animal abuse videos used to make a profit should most definitely be banned. The courts should be careful on how they word this law, because it could end up hurting the animal rights cause rather than helping it.
ReplyDeleteI am not the kind of person who become an activist for animals and protest the idea of them suffering, but I strongly feel that animals should not be treated in any harm. Just the idea of the crush videos made me shutter and feel sick. From what the article said, I don't know if Robert Stevens should actually have to go to jail. It sounds that his videos were purely educational. Though, I haven't watched these films, so I really don't have any idea what it was, but in this article it makes it sound like all he doing was showing the right and wrong ways of how to train your animal for hunting and pit bulls shows.
ReplyDeleteAnimals shouldn't be abused. It's plain and simple, but not all people understand that. If animals weren't abused in the first place, none of this would need to be happening. I believe that the law being discussed should be in favor of the animals. Just because we're a dominate species, doesn't mean we can kill and abuse them all so we can sell it and make money. Living creatures are more important than money, but reading this, it's obvious that to some people, money making through videos is more important than the sanctity of life. So, I think the making of videos containing animal abuse should be against the law.
ReplyDeleteI think, by reading the previous comments, that the whole class agrees that animal cruelty is wrong, and I join them on that. I don't know how people find entertainment out of dog fighting, and I don't believe any part of it is educational. I agree that Stevens was sent to jail. I think the people who make videos containing animal abuse in any way should be arrested.
ReplyDeleteAnimal cruelty is wrong. It seems everyone agrees on that. I do as well. You can be convicted of animal cruelty and sent to jail but the question presented is if those who depict animal cruelty in various forms should be convicted. If someone is seen in a picture of a gun or standing over a dead body they can be arrested if the right person finds that person and gives it to the police. A picture of video of animal cruelty is proof that a crime was committed and justice should be served. In the article, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals said there is not continuing harm down to the animals involved in animal cruelty. That statement is completely false. When the animals are maimed they have to live with their injuries everyday. A child involved in child pornography is scarred for life as well but the child might not even think about what happened to them everyday where as an animal without a leg or arm is forced to think about their injury all the time. Animals are living beings. They can sense pain and affection. And they can most definitely sense when they are being beaten or abused. Animal cruelty is, to me and in a nutshell, stupid. Anybody who wants to hurt an animal is juvenile and needs to get a life. It just doesn't make any sense. They should think of something else to do besides beat a defenseless creature. Animals may not have a conscience but they sure do have a heart.
ReplyDeleteAs many others have said, I also believe that animal cruelty is downright horrid, but the fact that people are taping and taking pictures of this is horrible in itself because let's be honest how can people watch that? But on the other hand, a good point was made. Unlike child pornography, watching or pictures of the attack that results in hurt or death don't follow the animal as its life goes on as pornography would a child. In Stevens case, I don't believe he should have been sentenced to jail because it seems that he was only doing what he was for educational purposes, and I know that protests against puppy mills and animal abuse and others like that have footage of the abuse and death, too, to show that the abuse is wrong. I don't think the videos and pictures for educational purposes should be made illegal, but for sure, media sold for profit about abuse should certainly be made illegal because animals are living, breathing creatures. They should be treated with respect.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with what majority of the class said. I feel pretty strongly about the rights of both people and animals, and I do see the point that an animal would not have to live with the same extent of emotional damage as a child caught up in pornography, but there's also the fact that the animal would be badly abused or killed. Yes, the pictures and videos can be used for educational purposes and to spread awareness, but I think that the banning of them would have a far more positive impact and could potentially decrease abuse significantly.
ReplyDeleteLaura n.
ReplyDeleteThis story really makes me wonder if people think this is okay. How can they stand animal cruelty? Animals are a pretty big big part of the world and they should be treated with respect. I beleive that animals should never be used in that way. It is very inhumane and the descision to put Stevens in jail was a smart thing to do. Animal abuse videos are horrible and help no one. These creatures can feel pain and sadnees just like humans, so they shouldn't have to go through torture like that.
I wanted to amend my previous comment.
ReplyDeleteIf animal abuse is illegal, then how is depicting it not? I can see how drawing a picture may be an example of free expression, and a (disgusting) exercise of the first amendment, but if an animal is in physical (or emotional) pain and it's being captured on film, all people involved in the act, either taking the picture or being the attacker, should be charged on animal abuse accounts. This is so offensive that the first amendment should not at all protect it.