(Thumbnail image from tailsinc.com)
"The Speech case involves a federal law that was enacted in 1999. It prohibits the possession and distribution of images of animal cruelty, and the Obama Administration is defending that. A Virginia man was charged with possessing and trying to sell images of animal cruelty. It included a dog fight video made in Japan, and he says that this is protected speech."
The Supreme Court begins its session this week and this case, combining elements of free speech and animal cruelty, has captured the public's attention. We’re looking at media perspectives on the law in question and whether the man’s free speech rights were violated.
We have insights from The Washington Post, Fox News, NPR, NBC, About.com and The Ventura County Star.
Here’s the case's history. In 2005, a federal jury sentenced Robert Stevens to more than three years in prison. A lower appellate court struck down the sentence, leaving the Supreme Court to decide the legitimacy of the law used to convict him. The law was passed to block so-called crush videos, in which women crush tiny animals with high heels for viewers' sexual gratification. It exempts images that have "serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value."
An editorial in The Washington Post and a reporter on FOX News explain why the law should be narrowed.
“It is written so broadly that it could be used to chill or even ensnare legitimate newsgathering exercises or put in legal jeopardy those who capture hunting expeditions on tape.”
“From the media’s standpoint, being able to show and depict stories that are actual and legitimate news events. The NRA is worried about hunting. It’s something that is legal in many, many places and a freedom that many people enjoy and they worry about people taking pictures of a dove hunt or a deer hunt and whether those videos or pictures of a hunting trip could fall under this law as well.”
In reports from NPR and NBC Nightly News, the man’s lawyer explains why the law is a step backward and explains the government’s ideal role in defining obscenity.
“The whole point of the Constitution is that it's not supposed to change just because a majority in Congress decides that it no longer thinks these images are, on balance, worthwhile.”
“Under our First Amendment, we let the people themselves decide what the value of speech is. We don’t have the government decide it for us.”
But a blogger on About.com adds his perspective on the definition of obscenity. Knowing the law was intended to combat animal cruelty videos, especially those marketed for obvious sexual purposes, like the crush videos, he asks if these are not obscene, then what is?
“The trouble I see is that if we live in a world where graphically violent content intended and marketed to appeal to sexual sadism is not regarded as obscene, but video of two people having consensual sex is, then it's reasonable to question our priorities.”
In an editorial from the Ventura County Star, the newspaper explains its support for the law.
“Videos showing the intentional killing and maiming of living, breathing animals -- whether they be kittens, puppies, rabbits, hamsters or mice — just to satisfy someone’s perverse, sexual fetish, are not free speech.”
So does the law infringe on our right to free speech? How do you think the Supreme Court should decide this case?
Copy the code and paste it to your blog or website:
