It’s the kind of thing that makes people question if the unprecedented protection given to free speech and expression in America is such a great idea.
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are pondering if that protection should extend to exploiting animal cruelty for entertainment and profit.
The case involves a 10-year-old law that bans graphic videos of dog fights and other acts of animal cruelty.
Robert Stevens, a Virginia man, was sentenced under the federal law for compiling videos of pit bull fights from around the world. (Ironically, his three-year sentence was 14 months longer than football player Michael Vick’s prison term for actually running a dog-fighting ring.)
A federal court threw out the law, saying it was too broad and violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. The high court agreed to look at the case after the Obama administration appealed.
Fortunately, questions by the justices during oral arguments indicate they have no intention of overriding the federal court decision.
The law is another in a long line of legislation that aims to ban things many people find objectionable.
Few would try to defend dog fighting, but the law opened up a broad range of video distribution to federal prosecution. (The law, in fact, was not initially aimed at dog fights, but to stop a strange sexual fetish called “crush videos” in which women in high heels crushed small animals under their shoes.)
And while the law exempted hunting and educational videos, the justices correctly honed in on the problem of zealous prosecutors targeting a broad range of videos. Could those who champion bull fighting be jailed for distributing bull fight videos? Could a video showing farm animals in cramped conditions — that some consider animal cruelty — be illegal? And the possibilities go on.
Whether it has been attempts to limit pornography, protect children on the Internet, keep Nazi-sympathizer groups from marching in parades, or attempts to limit disgusting videos, the laws passed almost invariably overreach and violate the spirit of free speech protections.
The unique right to speech and expression must be guarded jealously, even — especially — when the speech is distasteful.
— The Free Press, Mankato, Minn.
