Hi all -- this is the last three-point comment assignment of the semester. Troubling content -- but the Supreme Court has decided that a law that banned it goes too far. What do you think Congress should do next? Is there a way to regulate the behavior without regulating its expression? COMMENTS DUE BY THURSDAY, April 29th at 1pm.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hrs_8csElBknniLX6saFhRg8IZuQD9F6TF780
The deadline is moved since the Washington Post link failed earlier this week.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hello Dr. Bock, this appears to be a dead link. I've tried it twice now and no article comes up.
ReplyDeleteSame with me.
ReplyDeletethis happens to be a wonderful article...oh wait i cant read it...maybe it was taken down the very reason it was up there
ReplyDeleteI believe something like this is wrong and personally don't like it. But since congress didn't ban it completely they need to regulate what exact content can be shown in the video. Putting regulations on what can and can not be shown may help the problem move in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteAnimal cruelty is something that I do not take lightly. I think it is horrible and should not be put on the internet or TV for the public to see. They are right though when they say that this could be covered by the first amendment. It is a touchy subject, and should have more regulations. If I were the judge I would ban it, but that is just based on my love for animals.
ReplyDeleteIt's very rare that I find myself against any kind of legislation protecting freedom of speech, but I definitely disagree with this ruling. I think that comes down mainly to my love of animals and utter disgust for anyone who would do something like this. But I would consider this based on one of the standards from Miller vs. California (even though this isn't really a case of obscenity)-- does video of animals being abused have any serious literary, artistic, scientific or political usefulness? Absolutely not. I understand the thinking that since the act itself is illegal, that should be enough to keep people from doing it/prosecute those that do, but I think people will take the wrong message from this and see it as encouraging these acts. Getting enjoyment from hurting an animal or watching one being hurt is a sign of serious and dangerous psychological illness, and I think it is something that the government should regulate very seriously. This kind of 'speech' can have no benefit to our society, only harmful and negative effects, so there is no reason that it should be allowed.
ReplyDeleteI personally wouldn't be making videos portraying animal cruelty and am not an advocate for it or anything like that, but I agree with the Supreme Court ruling. If you protect one, you have to protect them all, and that is the point of the free speech amendment. Just because something is disliked or unpopular does not mean that it is an exception in the coverage of free speech. We don't have to understand it or agree with it. David Horowitz said, "Speech is protected whether it's popular or unpopular, harmful or unharmful." I agree with this statement, or at least, this is the way that I think it should be.
ReplyDeleteI think that the court did the right thing whether people agree with it or not. Anything that deals with animal cruelty I am completely against. Animals are living animals just like humans, anything that deals with killing or injuring animals I want a stop to it immediately. I agree with the quote by David Horowitz who said, "Speech is protected whether it's popular or unpopular, harmful or unharmful".
ReplyDeleteI completely disagree with the legislation passed in this article. Animal cruelty is not something to be taken lightly; they are living beings just like us. I do not think a video of animal cruelty serves for the better good of our people. People who find enjoyment in viewing such a video has psychological problems. I agree with the quote "the law could be read to allow the prosecution of the producers of films about hunting." I think that quote should go further and include the prosecution of the producers of any film involving animal cruelty. Animals don't have a voice to defend themselves and I believe it is up to us to defend them.
ReplyDeleteI understand both stances on this issue. Banning this video creation is censorship and goes against the freedom of speech; however, it is also cruel and inhumane to record animals being abused. It does not help the greater good of people in any way. Conversely, people still do have the right to create such a video. I personal believe it is wrong to film animal cruelty, but others may find it acceptable. Everyone has the right to his or her own opinion, which includes filming things to his or her own choosing. It is appalling and disgusting that people would desire to film animal cruelty, but I agree that the Supreme Court could not ban it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the courts decision, mainly because the law was too general. If they do push for Congress to adapt a narrower ban, I think they'll have a better chance at getting a law passed, which would certainly be a huge step for animal rights activists. It's hard to allow there to be such a generic law though because those videos show varying amounts of animal cruelty, and some videos portraying those things are being used by groups to make people fight animal cruelty, not to entertain. Make the law narrower, and the courts will most likely rule in their favor.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely disagree with the decision The Supreme Court has made. I understand that the law is very broad and can be interpreted in several different ways; however I feel this is a clear example that something with the law needs to be done and it should be more clearly stated. Yes it is true that they are protected under the first amendment, but come on is that really going to be ones way out of this? I think it is truly inhumane to video tape something like this and then to sell it. It just scares me that there are people like this out in the world, they need to find a better hobby than video taping animal cruelty.
ReplyDeleteI definitely disagree with the decision of The Supreme Court. I cannot believe first of all, that people actually do this for a living. I do not take animal cruelty lightly and there is no question in my mind that it needs to be banned. It is true that it's protected under the first amendment, but it comes down to people's ethics and morals. I think it is horrible what these people are doing and it needs to be stopped ASAP!!!
ReplyDeletei think anyone who would crush an animal with their feet has something seriously wrong with them. that type of material needs to be banned, and there's no need to harm an animal, for what fun? id like to put on some heels and dance on the faces of people who would do such a thing.
ReplyDeleteThe people who actually run and make the excessive brutal animal cruelty video should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But is just dog fighting considered animal cruelty? Should someone serve jail time for just selling dog fighting videos over the internet?
ReplyDelete