Without yet hearing the case, what side do you come down on for this case? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supr...videos-free-speech-obscenity/story?id=8675250 [rquoter]Dogfighting Videos: Obscenity or Free Speech? Supreme Court Hears Arguments Against 69-Year-Old Documentary Producer Who Distributed Videos Depicting Animal Cruelty By ARIANE de VOGUE Oct. 2, 2009— The issue of violent videos depicting dogfighting will come to the Supreme Court Oct. 6, as justices take on a major First Amendment case and try to determine where to draw the line between free speech and animal rights. Robert Stevens, a 69-year-old documentary producer, operated a business out of his rural Virginia home called Dogs of Velvet and Steel. While Stevens has said he has long opposed dogfighting, he sought to educate the public about pit bulls by producing films about the breed. In one video, Stevens, sitting in a rocking chair, talks about tapes shot in Japan in the early 1950s or '60s. It is clear that Stevens is not taping the fight but providing after-the-fact narration. At one point Stevens says, "I cannot emphasize enough that this video in no way promotes dogfighting or gambling." Stevens' lawyers say he included the violent, but apparently bloodless, footage to represent what he sees as the admirable traits of the breed. But his narration provides a play-by-play of the dogs fighting each other. At one point Stevens says, "You know who my pick is." Stevens marketed his films on his Web site, www.pitbulllife.com. The violent depictions in the videos are what landed Stevens in trouble with animal rights organizations and federal law. He was convicted and sentenced to 37 months imprisonment for violating a 1999 federal law that prohibits "knowingly selling depictions of animal cruelty, with the intention of placing them in interstate commerce." The law was passed to target the problem of animal cruelty. A federal appeals court came to Stevens' rescue and invalidated his sentence and the statute. The court found that his distribution of the videos was protected by First Amendment freedom of speech. Case Renews Debate Over Free Speech The case has ignited debate about what kinds of speech should be protected. The last time the Supreme Court addressed the issue was in 1982 when it carved out an exception to the First Amendment on the issue of child p*rnography. In court briefs, the government links obscenity laws with animal cruelty and argues that neither merits protection from speech. Solicitor General Elena Kagan writes, "Like obscenity, the depictions are of patently offensive conduct that appeals only to the basest instincts." But lawyers for Stevens argue that the case is not about dogfighting. "What this case is about is whether Congress can create whole new categories of speech not protected by the First Amendment," says Stevens' lawyer Robert Corn-Revere. "It's creating a whole new category that has never been recognized as unprotected by the First Amendment." Some First Amendment supporters have come to Stevens' defense, worrying about restrictions the government can place on speech. In a brief filed by the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, lawyers write that it is wrong for the government to equate protecting children from sexual abuse with the interest of protecting animals from inhumane treatment. "Morals, values, religious beliefs, customs and laws compel adult Americans to provide far greater protection to children than they do to animals or even other adults," the group's lawyers write. Justices Will Have to Tread Carefully However, the Humane Society argues that Stevens' lawyers are trying to mislead people and that Congress dealt with the problem narrowly. "The law at issue doesn't cover anything that has any journalistic, educational, artistic or social value," says the groups' lawyer, Jonathan Lovvorn. "When you strip away all the hysteria and rhetoric, this is a narrow law that only applies to those trafficking obscene materials over state lines." Lovvorn says that even though Stevens claims he is against dogfighting, his efforts to depict images of it and sell them across county lines contribute to animal cruelty. "If you dry up the interstate market for this material, it will reduce the underlying criminal activity," Lovvorn says. The justices will have to tread carefully, as they did in 1982, if they are going to try to develop a standard. Lawyers for Stevens ask how the court can draw the line on other so-called "depictions of animal cruelty" in films such as Errol Flynn's "The Charge of the Light Brigade," where filmmakers used wires to trip over 100 horses, causing some deaths. The case could be decided as early as this winter. [/rquoter]
If the guy was really showing the footage to demonstrate traits in the dogs I don't see a problem with this. He didn't shoot the video, he clearly stated he didn't advocate fighting dogs so what's the problem?
I love dogs. I hate dog fighting. But I think no court has the right to censor a documentary like that
I agree. I will go on to say that we live in a kinder, gentler world than the one that created the original pit bull terrier (and other bulldog breeds) but that doesn't mean we should pretend that these dogs didn't come from some of the strictest (and cruelest by todays' standards) methods of artificial selection.
Interesting read. While I don't agree with dog-fighting, I think this guy ought to be able to produce his content. I won't watch it, though.
From what I heard on NPR this morning, the defense was arguing that the law is over-broad, outlawing video of any treatment of animals that is illegal in the area. So, a video of a hunter shooting a deer would be illegal to sell in DC, where hunting is not allowed. We'll see what the SC thinks of that characterization of the law. It seems a little crazy to me to censor the material itself and I'm surprised that we have a law like that. I could understand making the filming of animal cruelty a crime, but it seems excessive to ban its view. One can understand why the distribution, ownership and use of child p*rn is illegal and not just its production, on the grounds of its encouragement of pedophiles and of its repeated violation of the original victim. But, I can't see how animal cruelty can rise to the same level. A dog won't be violated anew by the viewing of his fight. It may certainly encourage people in their animal cruelty, but their protection can't really be as crucial as children's. And, how far would we go in suppressing depictions of animal cruelty? Would we make fictitious animal cruelty illegal like we make fictitious child p*rn illegal?
Me too: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/km1hzTkn7fM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/km1hzTkn7fM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I don't know if I agree with that. I'm sure one could make a pretty decent business selling dogfighting videos. If the material is indeed obscene, it wouldn't be appropriate to allow it to bloom with this justification. I hope you would not apply this logic to child p*rnography, which would no doubt be a multi-billion-dollar industry if not for severe prohibition by the government (and it isn't doing too bad even with that prohibition). Instead, decide first if we'll allow ourselves to indulge in it; then let the market decide if anyone wants it.
How is this different from HBO documentaries on illegal activities. I understand that the point of dog fighting is to watch as opposed to say HBO's "Hookers at the Point" or whatever. But HBO is still showing illegal activity.
Yeah but this is the problem: what he says and what he's doing are two different things. He says he doesn't "codone dog fighting", then includes footage of dog fights, gives play-by-plays and talks about who his pick is? It's not enough to just say you don't condone something: you have to actually NOT CONDONE it. There are limits to free-speech and I think distributing videos depicting animal cruelty for profit should be where we draw the line.
It kinda depends on the focus of the documentary. If it shows dogfighting scenes as a way to illustrate the barbarism of the activity, then that would be justifiable, IMO. If it was just showing footage for the sake of showing dogfighting, then it wouldn't be OK.
Based on the short description provided here, I wonder whether the argument that such a documentary should be allowed is even relevant. It sounds as if he was already found guilty of violating the law, and the Supreme Court is not being asked to overturn that conviction. Instead, they are being asked to overturn the law itself. So in my mind there are two possibilities. One is that the law allows normal documentaries that might depict dogfighting but that do not in any way condone it, but this person was found guilty of going too far. In that case, I would be ok with the law and expect that the guilty verdict would therefore have to stand. The other possibility is that the law is overly broad and any documentary that depicts dogfighting, even if it is put in a negative light, would be illegal. In that case I would hope the law is struck down and the conviction rescinded. Either way, it wouldn't really be a question for the court of whether the documentary condoned animal cruelty, since that question was already answered as much as it needs to be by his conviction. Does anybody see it that way, or am I missing something?
The pit bull terrier is a dog created for fighting. I think the article said the narrator was mentioning attributes that the breeders who created the breed decades ago looked for. I don't see a problem with this. I love dogs as much as the next guy but these dogs have a history that should not be forgotten no matter how brutal it was. I understand there may be *some* people who misuse this video and try to learn techniques for breeding better fighting dogs. We could make that leap with almost any video/literature/commentary that says anything that could be misunderstood or misused.
According to the article, the footage was included to show the admirable traits of the breed. The filmmaker gives play by play, including joking about his wager. Despite his statement that he doesn't condone this stuff -- I'm doubting this is a film about the brutality of dog fighting with the necessary footage to convince us of its horrors. The humane society guy also says the law doesn't cover films with journalistic, educational, artistic or social value. That's usually the 'out' you would expect a filmmaker to use. But not here. So maybe they lost on that front already. Sounds more like his lawyers want the First Amendment to trump obscenity laws -- at least as far as animal cruelty goes -- possibly even more. EDIT -- I see that BetterthanI already made the point about it not being enough to just say you don't condone the fighting much betterthanI did.
I think that's a good point. The facts of the case are not the question so much as the law for the SC. Let's assume he was condoning cruelty to animals. I can understand outlawing video that is simply a snuff film with animals. The purpose would be to watch cruelty. I don't know if dogfighting is quite that base. It may be very cruel to the dogs, but the cruelty is also a bit incidental to the object of holding the fight, which is competition. We don't hold a human fighting competition, like boxing, to be so prurient, and you can watch those to your heart's content. So even if you revel in a cruel dog-fight, if the purpose of watching it is the thrill of the competition, isn't that a legitimate 1st amendment expression (which just happens to have a bad side-effect in its production)?
If boxers typically fought to the death, I think you'd see a ban on those competitions and commercial sale of the videos. The counter to obscenity is usually artistic or educational merit -- not the thrill of competition. The cruelty inherent in dog fights is not incidental to the competition -- it IS the competition.
Do you have a problem with the Government arresting people for the transfer of kiddy p*rn? That is a perfectly good example of how "freedom of the press" and the first amendment are not absolute. People are thrown in jail for distributing and showing photos of sex with children, even if they weren't directly involved in the illicit sex act with the child or the filming of it. For other limitations to the first amendment, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
