Thank you, Thomas, for stating your thoughts on this subject so reasonably and rationally. It's much appreciated.

Question: if and when hunting ever becomes illegal in the U.S., would you not support the making and selling of hunting videos at that point? (I know, it sounds far-fetched, but so did the outlawing of human slavery in this country a mere 150 years ago.) 

Thomas, 

You are arguing against a straw man. Indeed, hunting videos are analogous in form to other videos of animal abuse (and human abuse). However, that's a moot point. Hunting is not illegal and therefore the depiction of that terrible act doesn't fall into the category of filming dog fighting and selling the depictions for profit.

Selling videos of people killing animals for fun (i.e., hunting) across state lines would not be made illegal by application of the principle being applied in this case.  

Jen, the video in question (Stevens') includes two legal acts - dog fighting in Japan & catch dog work in the United States. It also depicts dog fighting in the United States, which is illegal in all 50 states. I don't think there is any question that Stevens created the videos for the enjoyment of viewers as opposed to any educational value (he says in the video that he selected the best "action clips" that he thought folks would enjoy most.) But 2/3 of the "activities" he showcased are legal in their country of origin.

No, they're depictions of animal cruelty, which is illegal in the United States. What constitutes that varies, but the issue is legally defined cruelty. 

Jen, you wrote "Hunting is not illegal and therefore the depiction of that terrible act doesn't fall into the category of filming dog fighting and selling the depictions for profit."

Catch dog work is legal. Dog fighting in Japan is legal. I'm just pointing out that Steven's video depicts 2 acts that are legal in their country of origin and are NOT necessarily defined as "animal cruelty", in the legal sense. 

I'm not arguing they aren't animal cruelty, but 2/3 of Steven's video depicts legal acts in their country of origin. Following your hunter argument, then depicting catch dog work or dog fighting from Japan is also legal.

Marji,

That was my mistake (I was writing, accidently, on Jen's). I overstated my point. Thank you for the correction. 

So are depictions of child abuse sold to those who enjoy watching the child abuse acceptable uses of speech? That's the distinction Lisa. If a video was used for the purpose of furthering public discourse on the problem of child abuse, as opposed to selling with the intent of making profit, then the distinction becomes even clearer.

Listen, the line isn't frigid, but that's the nature of law. There is open texture and interpretation and that makes the project quite complicated. But this isn't really the case: replace "dog fighting" with "rape of humans" and the distinction is clear. 

The counter-argument is implicitly normative: the exploitation of nonhuman animals raises a distinct moral issue not to be likened to the exploitation of human animals. It's that assumption that is clearly false. 

Making it illegal to sell such videos...now that's something I would be all for. But making it illegal to create them... er, you know, unless it's people with the same opinions as us, who are, like, creating them with a different intent...  well, that is certainly not.

There seems to be some confusion here. The law at issue is indeed specifically about selling the videos, about putting depictions of animal cruelty up for sale. This is perhaps made more explicit in a few places in the previous post.

Lisa,

Your argument necessarily applies to video depictions of human exploitation. Intent is similarly ambiguous in those cases. 

Alex, I agree.

That's shocking to me Lisa. This is the nature of the thin gruel that has come to constitute our political and moral evaluations in society today. We value "speech" nearly absolutely but this abstracts from the real harm that speech causes contextually. Depictions of sexual violence on camera are idealized realities with actual significance, not abstract self-expression. Pornography, therefore, creates norms and reifies our collective stereotypes about women and men. Likewise with images of animal cruelty. In the abstract, self-expression is interesting. But this self-expression has real-world consequences that actually causes harm. Therefore, you are valuing abstract expression over actual harm -- disembodied value over embodied suffering.    

That makes sense. I think the thing I disagree with there is the thought that videos/tv/media drives public opinion. I think it is public opinion that drives what is shown and seen as acceptable to be shown.

With due respect Lisa, that's naive. You are assuming a fictional free chooser that is belied by the literature on how we actually make decisions. "Choices" are products to a very large extent: of messaging, capitalism, ideology, etc. It seems to follow that public opinion is indeed driven by exogenous forces. Cause and effect may be difficult to discern in specific instances, however, the "cause" side of the equation is not as you understand it. We decide contextually, embedded in external factors. 

Accordingly, given that images have real effects, the argument that we ought to support "speech" is quite bizarre. 

Keep in mind children and teenagers can download animal torture/animal crush kitten, crush puppy videos are you are telling me this does no harm to society. WHATEVER...

I totally agree, and I do stand and shout. Quite often actually. But this argument is not about cruelty. It's about filming cruelty. If there's ever talk in the Supreme Court about harsher animal cruelty laws, I will be standing and shouting with you and the rest. :)

Man....I'd PAY to see that!!!(Har!)  However, people who do pay to see living things dismembered and killed "need killin'" themselves!!!

Demonstrating once again how the extent to which many who claim ot love animals really despise human beings--and really do love cruelty.

for Thomas Porter..It is obvious that you missed your morning dose of medication today. Cruelty is cruelty in all forms and we all should be against it in any form. To hide behind freedom of speech is to dissrespect that right. You, on the other hand, need help and I hope you get it soon. It is WRONG to abuse anything and anyone. I wonder how many pitbulls the justice owns. It is sad to know that you are so predjidust. What will you do if your cat gives you a case of cat-scratch fever?  Also, it would be a good thing to remove all of the hunting programs from TV. As I said...cruelty is cruelty.

On the point of cruelty and selling videos of it for proffit I gennerally agree that it is not a good thing.  However this could fall into the area of the sale of anti cruelty documentaries such as "Earthlings" which depicts the torture of pigs on a pig farm by employees could also be targeted under this bill.  In my opinion the government already has to much power to tell us what is right and what is wrong.  We only have the illusion of living in a free society but we are not free.  Cruelty in all forms is wrong and the perpetrators of it should be punished but this legislation is nothing less (in my oppinion) than a power grab by the power hungry.  By the way even if the legislation is passed these types of videos will still be available on the internet.  If the sickos that want to watch them want them bad enough they will find a way to get them.

On another note I feel obligated to come to the defense of dog lovers around the world and man's furry best freind himself.  Thomas Porter I can not beleive that you can be so discriminate.  Just because you like cats and don't like dogs does not give you a good reason to say that no one should have a dog as a pet.  Yes they can do damage and yes they do fight in the wild but so do big cats like tigers and lions and street cats squable (I think) more than street dogs simply because dogs are social and live in a cohesive pack and cats are mostly solitary and will compete against others for food. 

If brought up in the right environment by the right people even a breed with a bad reputation like a Pit Bull will most likely not be aggressive.  The only reason there are more dog complains in appartment buildings is because they bark.  Cats do not.  That does not mean they can not be vicious.  Watch "Dog Whisperer" and tell me that dogs are just aggressive beasts that are not one of the most loyal and loving pets a person could have.

**Absolutely not! Read this:**

The Current law:

18 U.S.C. § 48 : US Code - Section 48: Depiction of animal cruelty
(a) Creation, Sale, or Possession. - Whoever knowingly creates,
sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the
intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign
commerce for commercial gain, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) Exception. - Subsection (a) does not apply to any depiction
that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational,
journalistic, historical, or artistic value.

This would fall under serious educational and political category, so "Earthlings" would not be touched.  The only thing that is needed in the current law is include "for commercial AND non-commerical." I have written to the Justices of the Supreme Court about that simple addition wording "and non-commerical" would cover making it illegal even if it were a free download, whereas the law currently covers if it were PAID FOR (commercial venture). That would make downloading free "crush kitten" and Crush puppy and other animal torture (with obvious malicious intent to spread smut) illegal.

L. Swa.  Thank you for the clarrification.  I was unfamiliar with the entirety of the law in question and had based my comment solely on what I have read on this page.  That being said I would like to berrate Scalia for opposing this legislation because it seems fair and just.

Your slippery slope argument only applies if we presuppose that banning the book is beyond the pale from the outset. In other words, it's self-evident that "speech" carries with it absolute protection. If we alter the subject of the "speech," however, I think we can all agree on certain limitations, which suggests that this self-evident assumption is more rhetorical than anything. Our argument is simply to extend that line to include the exploitation of nonhuman animals.

I would disagree profoundly with your assumption. "Speech" is a disembodied good unless it translates into some collective gain. That means that the substance of the speech itself ought to determine whether or not it should be prohibited because the goal is to serve a substantive end; not simply, "speech is good."

That requires normative judgements of course, but so does the counter-argument (they assume that speech is prima facie absolutely protected because it's good).

If your speech translates into harm, or if it doesn't promote some other good (which is why Mill defended it so passionately), then it should be prohibited.  

First off I want to clarify that I am not for cruelty of animals in any way and those who whish to film it for profit surely should be locked up.  And as Bennet Rutledge suggested their videos should be used as evidence in order to convict them of the cruelty rather than banning the video itself.  That being said I must say the following as well.

Alex Melonas.  You seem to think you are a very smart person using all those fancy words and philisophical use of the word "speech".  I think what you're getting at in plain language is that if you are talking about something than you are protected by the constitution but any other form of expression (such as video) does not fall under the perview of that amendment and that certain things should be banned.  This is already being done in some ways but taken in context those who wrote down the constitution were not aware of television and such because they did not exist.  Surely what they at least implied was that we have the right to freedome of expression and not just the right to talk about what we want to talk about.

And if you still think that speech if it could be seen to cause harm should be banned as your comment   "If your speech translates into harm, or if it doesn't promote some other good (which is why Mill defended it so passionately), then it should be prohibited."  seems to suggest then who gets to decide what speech causes harm?  I hope not the government.  If that were the case it would be illegal to say that a pollitician is an idiot because it might hurt their feelings.  Harm can be seen and experienced by many people in many different ways and it would be impossible to classify in such a rigid manner.

Brad, 

Relying on slippery slope arguments is a weakness.

You are correct that we cannot classify "harm" in a rigid manner, but that counter-argument only follows if the things law concerns itself with are indeed rigidly classified. And in the next step, if the law itself is rigidly classified (i.e., if it's possible to write law rigidly). Neither assumptions are correct Brad.

There is interpretation at every stage of the process. The evolution of First Amendment law itself illuminates this point well. Furthermore, the language of law itself necessarily requires interpretation. So indeed, you and I already accept that the government will define "harm" (obscenity, "clear and present danger," etc.), however non-rigidly it may be. My argument simply acknowledges this, as opposed to assuming some objective pretense.

In the final analysis, there are normative judgments all the way down the line. What constitutes "harm" therefore likewise falls into this category. And I am fine with that.  

Furthermore, I would say that not everything you are talking about is protected for the same reason. You see this is why "speech" must be quoted because it includes what you are saying and how what you are saying is distributed.    

The reason why we discuss child pornography is because it goes to the substance of Scalia's argument about first amendment rights. Therefore, unless you have a valid counter argument James, thus justifying your disagreement with the analogy, you don't really have a point at all. 

So under that assumption, dog fighting should be okay to do (since under this argument it does no harm to people) and it should be legal under freedom of choice-it is afterall a free country. Keep in mind animal cruelty and crimes of violence are closely linked and it is no wonder the United States of America has 85% of the world's serial killers. Dog fighting DOES do harm: It is also child abuse because dog figthers and participants bring their kids along and they grow up thinking this is normal, and perpetuates the cycle of violence in society.

"One of the most dangerous things that can happen to a child is to kill or torture an animal and get away with it," Margaret Meade, Anthropologist.

Unless the media has serious educational, political, religious signficance (mostly along the lines of educating or research), it should be banned because it spreads vice in society.

L. Swa_,

Be careful never to concede that "harm" is only to be understood as "to people" (i.e., human animals). That assumption is obviously false, and therefore the child abuse analogy works because it exposes the underlying speciesism of all these counter-arguments. They have accepted the arbitrary definition of "harm" to only include human animals. When their own reasoning is extended to human animals, it falls down.  

So you are telling me children downloading crush kitten and crush puppy videos doesn't do them any harm. Okay whatever.

No, I'm certainly not saying that. I wanted to warn against naturalizing the human experience as the only way to understand harm. When we discuss harm there isn't any reason to reduce it to the experience of human animals. Harm to nonhuman animals is itself a moral issue.  

I suggest you sign my Petition, and spread it around. Also you may copy the body of my letter to the representatives and send it snail mail to the Supreme Court which I have done. TAKE ACTION-JUST DON'T COMPLAIN!!!

Work on ONE ISSUE at a time-you know they will never ban sports hunting BUT THIS ISSUE, THE ANIMAL TORTURE VIDEOS-IS AT HAND AND IS WITHIN THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY BUT WE NEED TO TAKE ACTION!!!

SIGN THIS PETITION!!

http://www.change.org/actions/view/make_animal_torture_videos_illegal_with_a_few_exceptions-

Done, and thanks for finding or creating that petition!It's beyond belief that while cruelty to animals is illegal, photos of cruelty to anumanls that can only be made by such druelty may end up legal!  There's an insane disconnect here.  They may as well keep torture and murder illegal - well, just murder now, I guess - and then make "snuff films" legal.  Sometimes some of the people in high office in this country amaze me.  In the most disgusting ways.

Actually it makes me wonder about a person's mentality if they support crush kitten/crush puppy/animal torture videos. I mean you are talking about torture and snuff and the screams of agony. How can anybody in their right mind say this is okay fine??? And they make the laws???

The above is just my opinion of course-perhaps they don't realize what they support. I don't know. Perhaps the Supreme Court should look at a real crush kitten/crush puppy video and see how ugly and disgusting it is before making a decision it is okay. In my petition I have a imagine of a kitten being crushed under foot-*NOT* to shock-but is a tiny example what people are supporting - I have far worse images, but I don't want people to vomit. My intention is not to shock - but simply look what you are supporting if you think it's okay for anybody to download these videos. Including teenagers and minors. ANYBODY. It does a society damage-harm-and spreads violence and Antisocial Personality disorder. But noted exceptions are for sociological, political, and educational reasons which are clearly defined in my Petition.

All of the activities you cite are legal, unfortunately.

When society is enlightened and compassionate enough to ban them, then I hope it'd be considered illegal to take pictures of underground actions, such as the brutal training of elephants for illegal circuses, if the intent of the photographer was to distribute the videos for profit -- as opposed to for whistle-blowing.

As for your use of the word "fanatical," anyone taking and trading films of the deliberate torture of any sentient being is a "fan" of violence and is therefore an "inane" "extremist," in my book. And that applies to any lawmaker, judge or citizen who supports the cruelty.

At some point in our moral evolution, laws on paper that prohibit violence against the defenseless are going to be unnecessary, because they will be written in our hearts. They already are in the hearts of most members of the AR community.    

Thanks, Olivia, you've just proved my point.  I suppose pictures of meat will be banned as well? 

Hey Chris,

I'm thinking in terms of centuries of gradual, slow moral evolution. You're talking like this is all going to take place in the next year. 

Hearts change, one by one. Minds change, one by one. Standards change, one by one and societally. Laws change, locally, state by state, federally.

Most of the changes made over time are for the betterment of all mankind and creaturekind.

Sometimes the changes happen fast. Other times glacially. It depends upon a person's and a culture's willingness to outgrow old ways of thinking and doing.

By the time enough people decide that whatever they wouldn't do morally to a human is also what they wouldn't do morally to an animal, we really won't need laws on the books. As I said, they'll be written in our hearts.

MLK Jr. wrote a letter from the Birmingham Jail about being an extremist for love, for justice, for mercy. That's why reformers are called extreme by those who haven't yet caught up yet -- because their vision extends farther than does the vision of the majority. 

I'm all for individual rights. I can't bear to have them repressed. But I don't think any individual human has a right to violate, directly or indirectly,  wittingly or unwittingly, another sentient being's right to live in peace.

Ask yourself whether you would think it decent and right for an animal, if he or she could, to photograph *your* murdered body for pleasure, profit, prize money, or a power trip. That may sound extreme to you, but that's what the Golden Rule is all about, to me. And that's the rule of law I think all of us will one day want to live by.

I agree with you, Olivia.

This sort of change is difficult because it is so ingrained in some people, and, for that reason, it will take time and small steps to begin with. The "you have to do all or nothing" argument is destructive because it makes people think it is too hard, so they give up before they start. We have to put isssues of animal cruelty on a continuum - starting with the worst and then work our way along.

Once you open people's hearts and minds to the worst of the cases through education, the rest should follow. I hope.

You are SO right, Junior Jr. (nice double name!)

In fact, just yesterday I posted a link to a haunting story proving your point; it's on the bullfights and rodeos" blog. For readers of the Scalia blog, it's: www.foodrevolution.com/pig_farmer.htm (John Robbins' website).