October 7, 2009
-
Is Dog Fighting Free Speech?
The Supreme Court will hear a case and decide if dog fighting videos are covered under free speech.
A man was arrested, convicted and given a three year prison term for selling videos of dog fights. There was a law in place that “‘prohibits the knowing creation, sale, or possession of a depiction of a live animal being intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed’ for commercial gain.” Here is the link: Link
Some are concerned that the conviction steps on free speech. The man claims he was selling the videos to make people aware of what was going on.
Do you think selling videos of dog fights should be protected as free speech?
Comments (82)
Heck no! Dog fighting is cruelty to animals!
it is not free speech. the dogs are being harmed in this situation. it’s animal cruelty.
Nope
No..Cruelty to animals is not free speech.
Sticky subject. The dog fighting itself is illegal. So one would think that the videos would be too. Dog fighting isn’t considered free speech. Why should the videos?
Besides, one can make educational material that does not hurt actual animals. Simulated events, anyone?
It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court decides.
no. sex with animals on tape is illegal so videos of people causing them to fight to death should be too.
No, but then thats why we need to watch who we elect as judges. They have passed things much worse than saying dog fighting videos are free speech. Why most of the cases like this don’t just get thrown out of ALL courts is beyond me
Why is the Supreme Court dealing with this case?
I would have to see the videos to determine the extent of their purpose and whether or not it infringes on free speech. If this is true then hunting and fishing shows/videos should also be banned and fined. The video content is the important thing. Is he showing the cruelty of dog fighting or is he promoting it?
Nah, it is just something for people to profit and gamble on.
No.
Dude no. Animals should be protected. Not exploited.
No
@sick_of_dreams - no. sex with animals on tape is illegal so videos of people causing them to fight to death should be too.
But what if the man was humping the dog in morse code?
This is a complicated case that potentially could get many news and recreational media outlets in trouble. Even NPR has filed a brief in support of the man sentenced to jail. The problem is that the law is so broad that it could expose reputable, including animal rights organizations, to prosecution.
The issue is not dog fighting, it is the way the law is written to ban any images of animal cruelty.
NO! This is their planet too. Unfortunately in the Supreme Court the question was raised whether or not there is a difference between dog fighting and bull fighting. That’s Europe. This is supposed to be a free country and dogs, who will do anything to please you, should be free, not in bondage like this.
Probaly not.
It seems to me, for an act to actually consitute as speech, there has to be something more than the visceral enjoyment of the audience. I can’t think of a larger message or intent beyond the director’s greed.
But it’s not too hard think of examples where dog-fighting could be a part of a larger production– with actual content and an actual message.
Though I find the activity disgusting it should fall under free speech. If you disagree with animal fighting don’t associate with people that engage in the barbaric form of entertainment.
Depending on the situation it’s used in.
If it’s used for educational purposes to increase awareness of the horrors and truly violent, criminal nature of dogfighting, then it’s fair game. If it’s for any other purpose, and to be used for gambling/profit, lock ‘em up.
Child porn is free speech!
Having sex with a child is illegal. Would possessing a video tape of the act be considered free speech? NO.
another GREAT example of abusing freedom of speech in great america!!!
Freedom of speech is soo overrated in this country it seems that it can be used to justify anything. and yes, there are actually academic scholars who use freedom of speech to justify child pornography (eg. Marjorie Heins). What has all the progress that the human race has made come down to? A cultural regression in the name of free speech?
when we talk about free speech, we eventually come to the value of ideas and cultures. But are all the cultures/speeches really equal?? Should your right to give intellectual, educated arguments for/against a particular public policy equate to some guy’s right to shout profanity, promote child pornography, or advocate unnecessary cruelty to animals solely for entertainment?
if we continue on that path of absolute, unlimited free speech, where will that take us to as a society as a whole? i can only imagine cultural death and regression in terms of our moral standards and our intellectual ability.
no
No, dog fighting and dog fighting videos are not free speach. There is no sense in someone intentionally putting their dog in a fight; that’s cruelty. Making videos and selling them is promoting cruelty towards animals. I want to know, how would that guy like it, if someone intentionally put him in a fight and made videos of him getting his butt kicked, sold them for profit and claimed it was free speech?!
I’d buy the videos, link?
its animal abuse. freedom speech has nothing to do with this
No, because it is a film of an illegal activity. From what I’ve seen, people can only use those images in the news and in documentaries. But I could be wrong.
If he was selling it to spread awareness, the question is, was he making a profit?
If he was really trying to make people aware, then why sell the videos. Give them away. Send them to media outlets. Make noise to get it stopped, not make money off it.
I don’t see how selling videos (“commercial gain”) helps make people aware. The two don’t go hand in hand.
it’s not free speech, it’s harming of animals to make a buck.
no.
I am against any stifling of the flow of ideas and information. If the government wants to stop videos of dog fights from being traded, they need to stop the dog fighters. Information exists, and the first amendment exists to protect the exchange of that information across any media, and between any people.
That being said, I am also against the federal licensing of radio and TV stations. I think that the creation of laws requiring these licenses infringes on free speech. Because of this licensing, the government has the power to restrict access to or outright deny the exchange of certain kinds of information. (I say this only to give people reading this perspective as to just how Libertarian I am on this subject. I’m not into dog fights. I have a dog. I love dogs.)
$0.02
“The man claims he was selling the videos to make people aware of what was going on.”
Well, this is a slippery slope. This could be an excuse and justification for peddling these videos for a profit and to evade legal ramifications.But, at the same time, I do not believe anyone is uproarious over vegetarian activist networks distributing videos of animal cruelty for the sake of education besides calling their beliefs and ethics into questions.It’s not in the context of, “Hey, man. Check it out! This chicken is getting it’s beak cut off and, OH SHIT! That cow’s being skinned alive. Sweet.”
No, not at all. And, really, I think this case needs to be thrown out as frivolous. Free speech. Is it free speech if I smack a toddler around, or have someone else do it, and tape it, then put it on YouTube? I think not.
No
Animal cruelty indeed.
Dog fighting is anything but free speech. I never heard a dog say “yes, I’ll fight.”
And if you truly want to make people aware, you won’t make them pay to see. You will go out of your way to let everybody see it.
I wonder how many commenters here picked up the fact that the man is a dog lover who’s trying to raise awareness of the awful cruelty. Still, if he really wanted to raise awareness, he’d let people see the videos for free. At the very least he’s trying to profit off the cruelty he claims to oppose. There’s something very backwards about that.
Yes it should be protected. If the videos are truly for raising awareness and the money going to relocate and rehabilitate the animals, then sure. If he’s running the fights and profiting from the vids, then hell no.
To ban these videos, you’d have to ban videos of the Holocaust, PETA’s famous animal cruelty videos (Tasty chicken!!), all the Earth First videos and so on…
There are some people that just haven’t quite figured it out. Or maybe they have and are trying to work it to there gain. No. It isn’t free speach. It’s a crime.
Who let the dogs out?
I am an attorney and I say HELL NO! Unlike the burning of a flag, the act of making dogs fight (or videoing the fight, or selling the videos) is not an alternate form of communicating a thought. I have faith the Supreme Court will say the same.
No.
child porn is free speech too.
gosh.
judging from the supreme court arguments it certainly sounded like the judges were leaning toward protecting it as free speech.
Is this the same guy who took the pictures of the Asian Amazon women who stomped kittens with high heels?
apparently it’s fine to club baby seals to death in Canada but a serious prison offense if you take a picture of the fun.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=82c_1234456418 (vile and violent content- for the purposes of adult awareness)
Canada does not seem to think so- but no wonder that PETA used this courting of world attention to through out video footage similar in content to the above to hurt Canadian chances of hosting the 2010 Olympic Winter Games….I am not surprised that picture taking is illegal at the present moment- no one minds a cause, but wears the line of ethics in savotaging economy?
-
But The USA isn’t Canada, is it Free Speech. where’s this gentleman’s ongoing proof of a cause versus banking receipts….actually skip all of this- where’s his non profit tax status papers? it’s that simple- should he have any proper paperwork , fine, free speech perhaps but otherwise, profiteering.
as for any of this being ethical- there is a desperation nowadays to get the message out and the political numbers and money necessary to affect change. some people become so zealous that they bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors who practice abortions….some people are just cuckoo-early word on this gentleman, isn’t looking favorable to his “innocence”
It has the exact same justification as porn. Film an illegal act (prostitution, dog fighting) and suddenly the film is free speech. All crap really.
No.
I do believe that speech is talking, free or otherwise. He’s making a profit from selling these horrible videos, if he wanted to alert people to the harm that’s being done there are other methods, that don’t involve money in his pocket.
He must be an idiot to believe that, that excuse will wash.
x.
I guess since porn and flag-burning are free speech, why not dog-fighting?
Maybe if I video tape myself while beating my kid and post it on YouTube, then child-abuse can become freedom of speech too…
Put it on youtube, don’t sell it.
The end.
Hell no. Thats insane…
@kissmebrutally - What you said. Diddo!
Next thing we’ll hear about is all the creeps saying that the making of “children” videos & such are a freedom of speech. *sighs* Ugh.
This is not free of speech!
Yes.
To make people aware of the situation, he should have turned in those idiots who were running the dog fights. He’s just as much a part of it because he took video and sold it for profit. There is nothing redeeming about dog fights and it’s not free speech. We already have enough war going on between mankind, we don’t need to toture and kill animals too.
No. Why wast your money on that sort of stuff? D: That’s awful.
Should rape or murder on tape be free speech? Dog fighting is vile, the people who do it are sick and the people who would watch it on video doubly so. This reminds me of an artist several years ago who tied up a live dog in a gallery and slowly let it starve to death. And that was called art! It makes me so mad that people abuse the most precious right in America to further their sick pleasures.
I’m so confused as to how it is free speech… simply because it’s a video tape containing material? If that’s the case, why isn’t child pornography just free speech?
I dont support dogfighting but i defintely will support anything that protects free speech.
Hell no
Um. No. I’m pretty sure there’s some type of regulation where if there’s a crime involved, it’s not okay. I’m pretty sure.
I haven’t seen a good dog-fight since I lived in NY. Man, those were the days.
Technically, yes. But it’s animal creulty.
if snuff videos and sharking on youtube are covered, you can bet this is. (don’t look up sharking videos if you don’t already know what it is.. just urban dictionary it)
of course it is.
Porn and violent/gory movies are protected, but not dog fights?of course under these conditions, child porn can be said under the same protection, but child porn shows, as evidence, that in some part of the world, a small kid is being sexually molested.
We make our boxers fight, and have other combat sports. So there’s very little to limit us from making the dogs fight morally.
So what if the animal fighting videos were distributed for free? would that make it okay?What about insect fight? they’re being sold for profit. (these are not normal insects…. they’re frkn huge.) should they be outlawed as well?
Supreme court should instead of try spending time deciding something more pertinent, like whether G.W. Bush’s Iraq war was legal or not.
no.
Lord, no.
No.
@valis10 - Well said.
If you say that the videos are protected and you cannot be convicted if you were the one who took the video then a snuff film should be protected as well. Even though they both are VERY accurately displaying harm. I do not think they should be protected just like child porn is not protected. But then you get into the documentary and educational where do you draw the line. I wouldn’t want to be a Supreme Court Judge on this case.
no
It’s an illegal activity. If it is free speech, the illegality of the action should forfeit the freedom of speech aspect.
THE FUCK? So should child porn be free speech too? This is assisting in animal cruelty, plain and simple.
I would say YES if it where cats. I feel any way to get rid of a cat other the large cats like cougars , mountian lions is fair game. But dogs no way
no way! What are you freely speaking there? It was once contested that cross burning was free speech and, although it was denied on the basis that it’s used to terrorize, which is not protected, they could at least claiming there was something theyr were speaking, mainly “we don’t like black people.” What’s being said with these videos?
with that chain of thought we could sell videos of people getting killed or raped or anything else for that matter because the video is protected. If the act is illegal and it captured on video it is called evidence of a crime, period!
Great post btw!
It’s evidence of a crime like child pornography
No!