I'm going to be honest up front here. I'm not sure I have a strong point of view on this. I certainly am not going to condemn someone for theirs. This is a hot-button topic and a lot of people have an interest in what is going on -- and there are an interesting two sides to the equation.
There is a major Supreme Court case will take place next Tuesday (Oct 6) -- and dogs -- specifically dog fighting videos -- is creating an interesting debate at the U.S. Supreme Court.
The case centers around a man named Robert Stevens. Stevens is a small-time film producer that was indicted, and convicted (earning himself a 37 month prsion sentence) of selling videos depicting dog-fighting - -an apparently violation of the 1999 federal law that bans trafficking videos with "depictions of animal cruelty".
It should be noted that the last time an entire category of "expression" was deemed so vile that it was outlawed and denied protection under the first amendment was in 1982 and the subject was child pornography.
So this doesn't happen a lot.
And while it seems like, as a lover of animals, and as someone who despises animal cruelty on any level, and dog fighting in particular, I should be strongly in favor of the ruling against Stevens, it isn't as cut and dry as that.
And make no mistake, I know nothing about Mr. Stevens. I don't know if he really is an "educator" as he says he is, or a piece of crap scumbag like I imagine him to be. This isn't about him personally at all. It's about what is best for the animals.
So let's look at issues.
There are a lot of reasons to root for Stevens to be found guilty, and videos of cruel actions against animals are found to not be protected by the Constitution. If the videos are found to be legal, there would be no recourse for the sale of vivid videos of major animal cruelty. While the cruel acts themselves would still be illegal (which would prevent it from being a free-for-all), it still would not prevent people from filming these acts in foreign countries (where the acts are not yet illegal) and distributing the videos here.
Forbidding the videos in total would prevent these horrendous acts from being visually available in the US (or at least making it criminal to distribute them).
While that all sounds great, there is a downside to this too.
The 1999 law applies to all video recordingsof "conduct in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed" -- as long as the act was illegal wherever the video was sold. There is also an exception in the law about materials with "serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value." Hmm, now we've gotten into some vagueness.
The reality is that videos showing horrible acts to animals have been proven to be used a lot over the years by the people who love and support animals. HSUS for YEARS has used video footage of dog fighting to bring education and awareness to this serious issue. The ASPCA and many other animal welfare groups would have similar footage used for similar reasons.
Meanwhile, this footage exists at nearly every TV news station in the country -- as they all seemed to show the footage when a certain NFL player was convicted of dog fighting two years ago. The "serious" value of some of this footage could be very much disputed.
This could also extend to many other areas of videos that exist -- like video that shows factory farming, pharmaceutical testing, circuses and the slaughter of baby seals. And often it is the "shock value" of this cruelty that sparks citizens to action. Which is a good thing. While large organizations would likely be well protected by the ruling, individuals who are using footage in their own areas to try to bring an issue to light might be highly succeptable to imprisonment.
In all, I think I'd rather the videos themselves just go away...but I certainly understand the flip side of the coin. Would love to hear your thoughts on the subject -- maybe it will help me sort through mine.
For more info:
Great article from the NY Times.
Another interesting look from the First Amendment Center.

Recent Comments