The most memorable video we watched in middle school showed the treatment of animals in the beauty industry. Students squirmed as they saw what happens to a rabbit’s eyes after lipstick has been shoved in them. Many kids covered their faces. Others protested having to watch.

It bothered me then, newly a vegetarian, to see students shielding themselves from confronting cruelty. But today it troubles me more to see animal rights advocates defending a law to banish images of cruelty entirely.

The federal law, Section 48, prohibits selling any “depiction of animal cruelty” across state lines. The Supreme Court is now considering whether the ban – targeted at violence fetish “crush” videos of people stomping animals, but far broader in scope – violates the First Amendment. Animal rights groups and the Obama administration are asking to Court to restore Section 48, which was overturned by 3^rd Circuit Court of Appeals, along with the conviction of Robert Stevens, who created and narrated dogfighting videos using others’ footage.  Stevens had been sentenced under Section 48 to three years in jail for making the films.  Michael Vick served one year less for running a dogfighting ring.

Animal Rights groups like the Humane Society reassure us that Section 48 specifically exempts works with “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.” But by carving out that exception, the law’s authors only confirm that banning videos just because they depict violence against animals is a problem for free expression. That exception is no solution. Section 48 requires depictions of violence against animals, unlike other speech, to demonstrate serious value (How would Zombieland fare against the same standard?). It’s an arbitrary standard, and it invites arbitrary judgments: In oral arguments, Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal reassured the Justices that Spanish bullfights are artistic enough, and Roman gladiator contests are historic enough, to be exempt from the ban.

Some have defended Section 48 by comparing animal cruelty law to child pornography. But the act of capturing an abused child on tape is, itself, a further violation of the child’s dignity.  Few would argue, on the other hand, that the act of taping an abused animal is a separate violation of the animal’s rights.

As part of his defense, Stevens is now claiming that his videos, which he marketedthrough the underground “Sporting Dog Journal,” were really designed as critiques of dogfighting.  As a factual claim, that’s hard to take seriously.  But by raising the hypothetical – what if these videos really were intentionally nauseating exposes, theApocalypse Now of dogfighting – he highlights a serious challenge to Section 48 and its defenders.  If the law would ban the ugly film supporting dogfighting but permit the one opposing it, how can animal rights advocates defend it under the First Ammendment? On the other hand, if the law bans disturbing images equally, whether they condone or condemn the cruelty, should those advocates want to defend it?

There's more...

The most memorable video we watched in middle school showed the treatment of animals in the beauty industry. Students squirmed as they saw what happens to a rabbit’s eyes after lipstick has been shoved in them. Many kids covered their faces. Others protested having to watch.

It bothered me then, newly a vegetarian, to see students shielding themselves from confronting cruelty. But today it troubles me more to see animal rights advocates defending a law to banish images of cruelty entirely.

The federal law, Section 48, prohibits selling any “depiction of animal cruelty” across state lines. The Supreme Court is now considering whether the ban – targeted at violence fetish “crush” videos of people stomping animals, but far broader in scope – violates the First Amendment. Animal rights groups and the Obama administration are asking to Court to restore Section 48, which was overturned by 3^rd Circuit Court of Appeals, along with the conviction of Robert Stevens, who created and narrated dogfighting videos using others’ footage.  Stevens had been sentenced under Section 48 to three years in jail for making the films.  Michael Vick served one year less for running a dogfighting ring.

Animal Rights groups like the Humane Society reassure us that Section 48 specifically exempts works with “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.” But by carving out that exception, the law’s authors only confirm that banning videos just because they depict violence against animals is a problem for free expression. That exception is no solution. Section 48 requires depictions of violence against animals, unlike other speech, to demonstrate serious value (How would Zombieland fare against the same standard?). It’s an arbitrary standard, and it invites arbitrary judgments: In oral arguments, Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal reassured the Justices that Spanish bullfights are artistic enough, and Roman gladiator contests are historic enough, to be exempt from the ban.

Some have defended Section 48 by comparing animal cruelty law to child pornography. But the act of capturing an abused child on tape is, itself, a further violation of the child’s dignity.  Few would argue, on the other hand, that the act of taping an abused animal is a separate violation of the animal’s rights.

As part of his defense, Stevens is now claiming that his videos, which he marketedthrough the underground “Sporting Dog Journal,” were really designed as critiques of dogfighting.  As a factual claim, that’s hard to take seriously.  But by raising the hypothetical – what if these videos really were intentionally nauseating exposes, theApocalypse Now of dogfighting – he highlights a serious challenge to Section 48 and its defenders.  If the law would ban the ugly film supporting dogfighting but permit the one opposing it, how can animal rights advocates defend it under the First Ammendment? On the other hand, if the law bans disturbing images equally, whether they condone or condemn the cruelty, should those advocates want to defend it?

There's more...

The most memorable video we watched in middle school showed the treatment of animals in the beauty industry. Students squirmed as they saw what happens to a rabbit’s eyes after lipstick has been shoved in them. Many kids covered their faces. Others protested having to watch.

It bothered me then, newly a vegetarian, to see students shielding themselves from confronting cruelty. But today it troubles me more to see animal rights advocates defending a law to banish images of cruelty entirely.

The federal law, Section 48, prohibits selling any “depiction of animal cruelty” across state lines. The Supreme Court is now considering whether the ban – targeted at violence fetish “crush” videos of people stomping animals, but far broader in scope – violates the First Amendment. Animal rights groups and the Obama administration are asking to Court to restore Section 48, which was overturned by 3^rd Circuit Court of Appeals, along with the conviction of Robert Stevens, who created and narrated dogfighting videos using others’ footage.  Stevens had been sentenced under Section 48 to three years in jail for making the films.  Michael Vick served one year less for running a dogfighting ring.

Animal Rights groups like the Humane Society reassure us that Section 48 specifically exempts works with “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.” But by carving out that exception, the law’s authors only confirm that banning videos just because they depict violence against animals is a problem for free expression. That exception is no solution. Section 48 requires depictions of violence against animals, unlike other speech, to demonstrate serious value (How would Zombieland fare against the same standard?). It’s an arbitrary standard, and it invites arbitrary judgments: In oral arguments, Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal reassured the Justices that Spanish bullfights are artistic enough, and Roman gladiator contests are historic enough, to be exempt from the ban.

Some have defended Section 48 by comparing animal cruelty law to child pornography. But the act of capturing an abused child on tape is, itself, a further violation of the child’s dignity.  Few would argue, on the other hand, that the act of taping an abused animal is a separate violation of the animal’s rights.

As part of his defense, Stevens is now claiming that his videos, which he marketedthrough the underground “Sporting Dog Journal,” were really designed as critiques of dogfighting.  As a factual claim, that’s hard to take seriously.  But by raising the hypothetical – what if these videos really were intentionally nauseating exposes, theApocalypse Now of dogfighting – he highlights a serious challenge to Section 48 and its defenders.  If the law would ban the ugly film supporting dogfighting but permit the one opposing it, how can animal rights advocates defend it under the First Ammendment? On the other hand, if the law bans disturbing images equally, whether they condone or condemn the cruelty, should those advocates want to defend it?

There's more...

The most memorable video we watched in middle school showed the treatment of animals in the beauty industry. Students squirmed as they saw what happens to a rabbit’s eyes after lipstick has been shoved in them. Many kids covered their faces. Others protested having to watch.

It bothered me then, newly a vegetarian, to see students shielding themselves from confronting cruelty. But today it troubles me more to see animal rights advocates defending a law to banish images of cruelty entirely.

The federal law, Section 48, prohibits selling any “depiction of animal cruelty” across state lines. The Supreme Court is now considering whether the ban – targeted at violence fetish “crush” videos of people stomping animals, but far broader in scope – violates the First Amendment. Animal rights groups and the Obama administration are asking to Court to restore Section 48, which was overturned by 3^rd Circuit Court of Appeals, along with the conviction of Robert Stevens, who created and narrated dogfighting videos using others’ footage.  Stevens had been sentenced under Section 48 to three years in jail for making the films.  Michael Vick served one year less for running a dogfighting ring.

Animal Rights groups like the Humane Society reassure us that Section 48 specifically exempts works with “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.” But by carving out that exception, the law’s authors only confirm that banning videos just because they depict violence against animals is a problem for free expression. That exception is no solution. Section 48 requires depictions of violence against animals, unlike other speech, to demonstrate serious value (How would Zombieland fare against the same standard?). It’s an arbitrary standard, and it invites arbitrary judgments: In oral arguments, Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal reassured the Justices that Spanish bullfights are artistic enough, and Roman gladiator contests are historic enough, to be exempt from the ban.

Some have defended Section 48 by comparing animal cruelty law to child pornography. But the act of capturing an abused child on tape is, itself, a further violation of the child’s dignity.  Few would argue, on the other hand, that the act of taping an abused animal is a separate violation of the animal’s rights.

As part of his defense, Stevens is now claiming that his videos, which he marketedthrough the underground “Sporting Dog Journal,” were really designed as critiques of dogfighting.  As a factual claim, that’s hard to take seriously.  But by raising the hypothetical – what if these videos really were intentionally nauseating exposes, theApocalypse Now of dogfighting – he highlights a serious challenge to Section 48 and its defenders.  If the law would ban the ugly film supporting dogfighting but permit the one opposing it, how can animal rights advocates defend it under the First Ammendment? On the other hand, if the law bans disturbing images equally, whether they condone or condemn the cruelty, should those advocates want to defend it?

There's more...

The most memorable video we watched in middle school showed the treatment of animals in the beauty industry. Students squirmed as they saw what happens to a rabbit’s eyes after lipstick has been shoved in them. Many kids covered their faces. Others protested having to watch.

It bothered me then, newly a vegetarian, to see students shielding themselves from confronting cruelty. But today it troubles me more to see animal rights advocates defending a law to banish images of cruelty entirely.

The federal law, Section 48, prohibits selling any “depiction of animal cruelty” across state lines. The Supreme Court is now considering whether the ban – targeted at violence fetish “crush” videos of people stomping animals, but far broader in scope – violates the First Amendment. Animal rights groups and the Obama administration are asking to Court to restore Section 48, which was overturned by 3^rd Circuit Court of Appeals, along with the conviction of Robert Stevens, who created and narrated dogfighting videos using others’ footage.  Stevens had been sentenced under Section 48 to three years in jail for making the films.  Michael Vick served one year less for running a dogfighting ring.

Animal Rights groups like the Humane Society reassure us that Section 48 specifically exempts works with “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.” But by carving out that exception, the law’s authors only confirm that banning videos just because they depict violence against animals is a problem for free expression. That exception is no solution. Section 48 requires depictions of violence against animals, unlike other speech, to demonstrate serious value (How would Zombieland fare against the same standard?). It’s an arbitrary standard, and it invites arbitrary judgments: In oral arguments, Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal reassured the Justices that Spanish bullfights are artistic enough, and Roman gladiator contests are historic enough, to be exempt from the ban.

Some have defended Section 48 by comparing animal cruelty law to child pornography. But the act of capturing an abused child on tape is, itself, a further violation of the child’s dignity.  Few would argue, on the other hand, that the act of taping an abused animal is a separate violation of the animal’s rights.

As part of his defense, Stevens is now claiming that his videos, which he marketedthrough the underground “Sporting Dog Journal,” were really designed as critiques of dogfighting.  As a factual claim, that’s hard to take seriously.  But by raising the hypothetical – what if these videos really were intentionally nauseating exposes, theApocalypse Now of dogfighting – he highlights a serious challenge to Section 48 and its defenders.  If the law would ban the ugly film supporting dogfighting but permit the one opposing it, how can animal rights advocates defend it under the First Ammendment? On the other hand, if the law bans disturbing images equally, whether they condone or condemn the cruelty, should those advocates want to defend it?

There's more...