Maybe the court has rediscovered the First Amendment. Courts have long held that free speech entails a lot more than linguistic vocalization. It includes various forms of protest and artistic expression. It might even include videos of detestable, offensive behavior. From Antonin Scalia to John Paul Stevens, the justices seemed unanimously skeptical that the videos could be exempted from the First Amendment, no matter how gruesome or inhumane the scenes might be. The law was also so vague about just what is "animal cruelty," that any number of activities, from Spanish bullfights to slaughterhouse activities could not be filmed. Hunting videos would be banned, most justices agreed. At one point, an attorney tried to suggest that "killing" would be considered animal cruelty. That would be a surprise to millions of meat-eating Americans.
Justices suggested that rather than attempting to ban the filming of cruel acts — and thus run afoul of the First Amendment — Congress could specifically ban the cruel acts themselves. Dog fighting already is covered by state laws.
When the Supreme Court hands down this decision, it will likely be condemned by defenders of helpless animals, but such protests miss the mark. This case is not about animal cruelty; it is about the First Amendment right to record factually accurate depictions of daily life. When an act is not a federal crime, filming it or writing about it cannot be a federal crime, either. It's one of the few things the often-divided High Court seems able to agree on
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment