"Should it do so, it will be only the second time in US history the First Amendment has been dealt a legal blow at the level of the Supreme Court. The first time, by the way, was in 1982 over the issue of child pornography."  I don't think so.  See page 13 of the opinion below in this case for 4 S.Ct. opinions exempting several classes of speech from  protection.  If the Supremes intend to uphold the lower court (and I think they do and will), this case was granted cert for entirely different purposes and the final opinion could be quite interesting.  In the case at bar, the prosecutor would have had trouble finding a worse case, a worse defendant, to test this law.  The law in question has been used by law enforcement coercively for years and, while I don't approve of that use, it has served a function.  I suspect it will be gone from their tool box when this is over.  In this case, they chose to prosecute over videos that apparently don't depict anything that was illegal where and when filmed.  While I may feel the videos are abhorrent, I still have to side with this being protected speech.  The protection of free speech is just too important, too fundamental, to make an exception for this particular law.

If you have some time to kill and want to really dig into this one, all the official stuff can be found here.

PJBoosinger October 5th, 2009 01:01:51 PM

Yes, it will be a bad thing. 

Freedom of speech does not extend to freedom to profit from videos of criminal acts.  I believe the court could craft a verdict that makes it clear that videos of scenes depicting non-criminal acts such as animal experimentation in legally approved activities, dog fighting, etc. (such as those used by animal rights orgs to draw attention to the cruelties perpetrated by industry and criminal elements) are not addressed in their judgement.

Should they rule that individuals can profit from selliing videos of criminal animal cruelty, then it will be a signal that nothing is off limits when it comes to animals.

Of course, it's already true that NEXT TO NOTHING is off limits when it comes to animals.

I don't think that parents should be able to beat their children and sell the videos to pervs either.  I don't think that nursing home workers should be able to molest elderly residents and sell those videos to pervs, either. 

Yes, it's more work for a court to draw such a fine line (it's OK to show sexy grandma getting her freak on for those who dig such things, but not OK to show molestation of a helpless nursing home resident) but you know what?

Those things are clearly enough different that unless the system and all the people in it are terminally stupid or lazy, they can tell the difference and apply the law appropriately.

Its really abhorrent how the "slippery slope" argument keeps showing up whenever the issue of providing some MEAGRE protections to animals is raised.  Funny the same logic (or illogic) is so clearly ridiculous when applied to Grandma.  

And I find nothing whatsoever objectionable with saying that in any state where something is a crime, it is also wrong to SELL FOR PROFIT video depictions of said crime being permitted.  Nonprofit use for educational, documentary, law enforcement purposes etc would not be banned, but rather the sale for profit of such depictions.

Stefani October 5th, 2009 01:35:44 PM

Stefani said something that kinda rattled my brain a little.  The freedom of speech argument, if applied to child exploitation, would mean that child pornography would be legal as long as it involves children from a country where minors can legally be photographed or filmed having sexual encounters and nudity.  So applying the freedom of speach argument, selling nude child picutures or sex videos from a 3rd world country would be legal.  I am just taking the freedom of speech argument as stated for dog fighting in this argument and applying it to child porn.  I am not trying to make a case for or against, but I am wondering if the precident for child porn being illegal would apply here.

EAB October 5th, 2009 01:50:36 PM

"would all hunting videos be banned in Washington state, where no hunting is allowed?"

Huh? As a resident of the aforementioned state, I can say that hunting is most definitely allowed, though what, when and how depends on the location.

I'm not sure where I stand on the issue, as I can see huge impact on both sides. What about the cruelty images organizations use to galvanize public opinion and get things like dog-fighting banned in the first place?

lindabcs October 5th, 2009 02:36:44 PM

lindabcs: You know, I thought that was odd. I'll fin the source of that for you––it was probably well-qualified and I missed it. 

Dr. Patty Khuly October 5th, 2009 03:04:08 PM

EAB, The ban on child porn isn't nearly as broad as people tend to think it is.  The penalty is sufficient to discourage some from taking the chance in the gray areas which are numerous.  See Ferber for the "ban" and Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalistion for one of the subsequent exceptions to the ban.  I don't keep up on these cases but here's another one that was before the court.  I have a vague recollection of a movie that was made in Europe, think it involved an older woman with an underage boy in an historical setting, some scandal over it being shown in the US, don't remember how it all turned out.  Yes, I think the Supremes would have trouble with a ban on kiddie porn if it could be proven it was legal where and when made.  Even more problematic to prohibit lesser protected subject matter like what we see as animal cruelty when it occurs in other countries.  Much of the world sees our standards as provincial and puritanical at best.

lindabcs, HSUS seems to think videos like the ones on their website would be exempted.  I doubt they would be if the court ruled as HSUS wants but then maybe they're willing to give those up if they get the ruling.

PJBoosinger October 5th, 2009 03:11:03 PM

Dr. K, it's the statute itself.  If you want the actual language, I can post it.

PJBoosinger October 5th, 2009 03:13:02 PM

"That means it may be a crime for an American to sell a video of a bullfight that took place in Spain, where bullfighting is legal. And because all hunting is illegal in Washington, a literal reading of the statute would make the sale of hunting videos illegal here."  There's the quote about Washington.  It's from the NYT article about Stevens.  Perhaps they meant Washington, D.C. not the state of Washington?

PJBoosinger October 5th, 2009 03:46:27 PM

Linda you asked:

 "What about the cruelty images organizations use to galvanize public opinion and get things like dog-fighting banned in the first place?"

I don't think that's what's being discussed here.  What is being discussed here is selling the videos for PROFIT, not, for example, use of videos by a nonprofit to educate the public and lawmakers.

To riff off the kiddie porn example:

It is illegal to produce and sell child pornography, just as it is illegal to do the acts which are being recorded. 

It is not illegal to do a news segment ABOUT child pornography, nor is it illegal to show portions of confiscated films in a courtroom or to law enforcement.

Somehow, we manage to make this rational distinction when it comes to humans.  But every time someone asks for a rational distinction applied to animals, all the industries who make money off animals come running forward warning about the "slippery slope."

Stefani October 5th, 2009 03:53:48 PM

What distinguishes the kiddie porn from animal cruelty videos to me is the on-going and future effect on the child depicted in the videos; something the animal does not suffer.  As for making money off the animal videos, despite their argument that they do good with the money, HSUS uses these atrocious videos for fundraising but they make them readily available on the internet which means they are readily available to the "pervs" who get off on such things.  I'd almost be agreeable to letting this law stand if it would force HSUS to take their videos off the net.  IMO, still better to let free speech be.  In fact, I doubt the "can't yell fire" ruling would stand up if presented to the court today.  Better to outlaw the actions we don't want committed in the first place than try to parse language on free speech issues.

PJBoosinger October 5th, 2009 04:31:20 PM

I really don't see how this is different from snuff films.

Stefani October 5th, 2009 04:46:43 PM

Are you saying you think snuff films are illegal?

PJBoosinger October 5th, 2009 04:51:55 PM

PJ, yes, I am saying I think human snuff films are illegal if the act they record really occurred, as opposed to it being a fictional portrayal (still utterly awful, but not illegal probably).

I just don't see the difference. Someone please explain:

There are sickos (very rare, but they exist) who:

1.  Kidnap, rape, torture and kill women

2.  Film the above-described acts and finally

3.  Then sell the films.

I think we are all in agreement that item 1 is all kinds of ways illegal.

Are not items 2 and 3 above also illegal?

If so, how is this case -- the torturous killing, filming, and selling of the product involving animals -- different?

Why are you  not arguing "slippery slope" and "free speech" in the case a a human female victim, but you are arguing it when the victim is an animal?

Stefani October 5th, 2009 05:31:35 PM

Sorry, 2 and 3 are not illegal.  See here for a nice discussion.  And I think the analysis that we go after them for the actual crimes rather than for "filming" makes the best sense.  Ditto for animal abuse.  No slippery slope here for me as I don't think the freedom of speech should be impinged; again, go after the underlying crime, not the de minimis filming.  Best way to stop that is not buy their videos.  (I'd guess this guy made far more after being indicted than before because all the media outlets instantly wanted copies of his videos.)  I'm not arguing for a "human female victim" but for nominally against kiddie porn (which is a violation of both male and female children, although I take issue with both the statute the Supremes partially [and only partially] upheld) because videos of kids have an on going impact on the child since they may resurface at any time.  Still, I'd rather see the actual underlying crimes against the child prosecuted than the filming and distribution prosecutions.  One of the reasons the Supremes granted an exception for kiddie porn was that the government was able to show that those doing the abuse of the children were the most likely to film and profit, adding insult to injury, all of their own making; that there was a cause and effect relationship and that taking the filming profit out would reduce the child abuse.

Repeating that the on going effect of these videos re-traumatizing the human are something that doesn't happen to the animals.

In this case, apparently the defendant committed no illegal acts but for the alleged filming violation.  There doesn't seem to have been much of a connection between the filming and the underlying alleged animal cruelty.  (It may exist but he doesn't appear to have been even charged with it; nor did those arguing for this change to the constitution make a decent case of establishing a connection generally.)  Boar hunting with dogs may be seen by some as "animal cruelty" but apparently not so where he was doing it since he wasn't charged with that.  Our entire country may see dog fighting as cruel but Japan does not.  We may see the animals in these videos as victims but that doesn't mean it was illegal so why would filming it be so?  I have a Shiba Inu, these dogs were historically used for boar hunting in packs and considered expendable.  I wouldn't think of doing so with my precious one but I'm sure they are still so used in Japan.  Cultures differ.  We have a diverse culture and the law needs to accommodate that.  A big reason we are able to have such diversity is because we have protection of fundamental rights like free speech so we can discuss exactly these kinds of issues.  While we can't change Japanese laws, we could certainly lobby for outlawing boar hunting with dogs if that's what we'd like and if that's what you actually find offensive.

Just to toss another monkey wrench into the works...  Although this case is being litigated on the basis of fourth amendment free speech grounds, you can bet the Supremes are also considering the impact of their decision on freedom of religious practices.  Can muslims film the ritual killing of animals for food?  Can Santaria film the ritual killing of fowl?

PJBoosinger October 5th, 2009 06:09:59 PM

Well, a big one. First, the Supremes can only take a case and do with it what the facts are as it comes up in a specific legal posture. However, many cases the Court decides do affect a whole bunch of pending and very similar cases. So, I don't know the details. I have read the Animal Legal Defense Fund's article on the case.

Second, the free speech rights under the 1st Amendment have been abrogated in many cases other than child porn, so this is not even close to the second time such rights could be limited. Ex. profanity on TV, commercial speech, speech of public figures, and hate speech to name a few. In fact, the original case that decided that some speech that can incite people to harmful action, and is thus unprotected is a famous, oft-quoted case, Brandenberg, that essentially decided that some speech like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater (when it wasn't true), thus causing a stampede, is not protected. I won't even go into the religion cases. So at issue will be the compelling state (government's) policy fundamental to the enactment of the law. In other words, what's the compelling state interest that was intended to be protected by the legislature that enacted it. Was it protection of public health, animals, what? This is an essential part of the equation. If the court decides the policy is public health, it could reach a different result than if it found the law was to protect animals. It is somewhat bound by the purpose of the law. So, if the film is per se harmful to one or another interest, as analysed under the !st A., it may decide it incites activity dangerous to the publlc, animals, or both. Sort of like hate speech or the fire in the theater. But if it decides that this law in itself doesn't really apply to this, it could be because even though it's horrendous content, people don't have to watch it. This just means this would not be the case where the court could protect animals, when the "speech" at issue is measured in terms of effect on the public interest, not the animal interest.

I don't want to go on and on about the legal analysis, and of course I don't know what the court will decide. It's possible if the Court held in this case, on these facts, under this statute, that the film was unprotected, it would be making a decision that would be too broad, meaning that there would still be no way to know what would or would not be protected speech, b/c there would be so many permutations of this problem, and no way to make a correct broad rule, covering only the bad guys. That would not mean that the Court is opposed to protection of animals, just that they need a better case to make more rules about animal protection, cruelty, and so on.

So, whatever happens here, get on your legislators of all types, support the animals groups you agree with, and work to increase public awareness of all information you have that can change the status of some animals, at least, to not just property, like a chair!!!!!! And push for enforcement of the cruelty laws, etc. that do protect animals.

Until there is legal recognition that animals should not be treated just as property (and some states are beginning to do this), then the laws we have will remain limited to relatively narrow situations--and those protections were very hard to get!

SH October 5th, 2009 06:21:25 PM

PJ, thanks for the link -- but, in fact, the blog to which you link explicitly identifies the act of filming the murder as a crime.

While it says that PUBLICATION of the film AFTER the fact is not a crime, the example given is one of the film showing up on YouTube (free).

The blog is entirely silent on the topic of selling the video for profit through a commercial enterprise.

Here is a quote from the very article you linked to:

"The person or people who recorded the beheading would be liable for murder, even if this is "all" they did, because the law would find that they encouraged its commission."

I am talking about videos of CRIMES being committed being sold for profit when the desire to MAKE profit from selling a video of the criminal act was the primary motive for the criminal act itself.

I persist in believing (as a lay person) that this sounds like it must be illegal, and the article you linked to doesn't disabuse me of that idea, although I am not a lawyer.  I am happy to continue being educated on what the law IS, but I will be very surprised if I am not right about that.

I guess the question is:

Will the Supreme Court buy the argument that Stevens was producing and selling educational videos on how to train pit bulls for fighting, and that the acts that were committed and filmed on US soil were not illegal; and that those acts that were illegal in the US and depicted in films he sold were actually committed in a country in which they are not illegal, etc blah blah.

While his acts do not deal with "crush videos" the 1999 law under which he was convicted was apparently enacted in response to a "crush video" craze.

(http://www.newsweek.com/id/216740)

When the circuit court overturned the District court's decision against Stevens, the article says: "there was a surge in the posting of crush videos on the Web after the circuit-court decision."

The continuing harm argument seems flawed to me.  Particularly if you think about how it applies more broadly, not to this case.  The original law came about in response to a flurry of Crush Videos.  Those individuals who were killed in the video did not survive to suffer "continuing harm" even if they had been capable of it.

By that same logic, a woman who was raped and killed on video would not suffer "continuing harm" by having the video thereof resold umteem times, cuz she's dead, also.

It's ludicrous to think that someone should be able to make money off selling videos of women being murdered.  So where do we draw the line, then?  Would we rather allow the sale of murder videos for profit as long as those murders aren't committed in the U.S., because to do otherwise would invite a "slippery slope?" I don't think so. 

Why is it different when the victims are nonhuman?

I think the ** real difference ** is that animal industries are afraid of how it might affect them if it were illegal to sell videos of people torturing and killing animals.  Why bother making a pretense of legal logic then?  The response is:

We will turn the law into a pretzel to justify permitting the sale of depictions of animal cruelty for profit because we would never want to impinge on any business' rights to profit from the exploitation of, up to and including criminal cruelty to, animals. 

If they rule for Stevens, I would hope that the ruling is limited and specific, and re-asserts the illegality of selling the kinds of crush videos the law under which he was prosecuted would prevent.  But if they do that then they have a logic problem.

Either way, it's pretty obvious what the implications will be if that's the verdict:  Open season on crush video production and sale. 

stefani October 5th, 2009 06:53:10 PM

Stefani, that blog does not say the filming is illegal, it says the murder is.  Of course, if you can point me to a single law that says otherwise, I'll actually be thrilled but, to the best of my knowledge, none exists (and I did go hunting for them).  I realize you don't like to differentiate between humans and animals, that, when you do, animals are given preferential treatment.  However, that certainly is the minority position.

"a woman who was raped and killed on video would not suffer "continuing harm" by having the video thereof resold umteem times, cuz she's dead, also"  Yep, best of my knowledge that video sale would be legal too provided the woman wasn't under age 16 (and provided it could withstand the obscenity exception).  This isn't a case of the law being different between human and non-human, it's the difference between children and animals.

Yes, the crush videos may well come back in force.  You can blame Congress for that.  They decided to make the law so broad this was bound to happen instead of focusing on the crush videos and making the law a narrow one.  If they'd limited it to the crush videos, it is unlikely there would ever have been an appeal, certainly not this appeal since this case doesn't involve animal crushing at all.

PJBoosinger October 5th, 2009 07:26:01 PM

CNN and SI and AP are profit making entities. Why should they be exempt from a prohibition on showing dogfighting? MORE people saw dogfighting videos on these so called news sources than all the people who ever saw Bob Stevens' tapes. And repeatedly.

The HSUS has built most its organization from fundraising and seminars using dogfighting videos (and arguably PROMOTED dogfighting with its campaign). Why should they be exempt?

The harm is in the dogfighting. What is the harm in the viewing of dogfighting films? And if it's harmful, shouldn't it be forbidden to ALL, not just smalltime publishers?

If Bob Stevens can't make a few bucks from dogfighting videos, then CNN et all shouldn't be able to make HUGE bucks from the sponsors of the shows where they highlight the same videos

BTW, do crush films actually exist?

EmilyS October 5th, 2009 08:01:18 PM

Oh, yeah, lots and lots of crush films.  In fact, the amount of animal/human erotica out there is really startling; something I ran across when researching the hazards of public swimming pools.  Snuff films are alleged to be urban myth but, like the blogger I cited said, life is cheap, hard to imagine there aren't a few out there.  A few of the rape videos too.

PJBoosinger October 5th, 2009 08:09:30 PM

OK, PJ, the blog does not say that the taping itself is illegal, but it says that anyone who DID tape it would also be liable for murder.

So, tell me if you think this WOULD be considered a crime by the court, or if it SHOULD be considered a crime:

A man commits an "honor" killing of his wife, in a country in which such acts are legal,

Prior to/while committing this "honor killing" he forces himself upon her sexually, (in a country that also doesn't recognize forcing your wife to have sex with you are rape).  He tied her up during the entire thing to make sure she could not raise a finger in her own defense.  He also stoned her, etc.

During the entire incident, his brother was in the room and filmed it all

And then his brother flew to America with the video in his luggage.

At a dinner party, his brother meets a man who produces S&M videos for sale.  These S&M videos depict scenes between consenting adults who are "acting".  The brother shows the S&M producer the video.  The producer is well aware that it is footage of a real murder. 

The brother argues that because the woman is tied up and forced to have sex, the video will sell to his audience.  The producer purchases, thinking that the "realism" of this scene will help him sell lots of copies of a compilation of S&M videos.

The producer knowingly sells, for profit, video of acts that are crimes here -- rape and murder.  When charged, he argues that these acts were committed in a country in which they were not illegal, and that the videos serve an educational purpose, because the methods used by the husband to tie up the wife demonstrate the proper way to tie someone up.

As predicted, sales of this video are through the roof, with sickos buying it because they ** can tell ** its real, not a scene.

How do you think the court would rule?

How do you think they should rule?

The slippery slope works both ways. 

Stefani October 5th, 2009 08:51:19 PM

The harm of selling dog fighting videos for profit to dog fighting enthusiasts is exactly the same as the harm would be of selling child porn to pedophiles.

It encourages the act.

Stefani October 5th, 2009 08:54:01 PM

Since we got back to crush films, which is what underlies this law, I'll also point out that this law, in addition to being so broad it's nearly indefensible, it also didn't come close to stopping or banning a large portion of the crush videos because "animal cruelty" laws don't come close to covering all the creatures who get "crushed".  More on that here.  On a closely related topic, the reason zoonoses concerns me is that swimming pool research I did.  Both M.Ds and Vets should most certainly be more aware of the (IMO gross and disgusting) possibilities of transmission when  "A 1982 study suggested that 7.5 percent of 186 university students had interacted sexually with an animal." and these easily transmissible diseases are the known possibilities (ignoring that most don't even want to know this so I think it highly unlikely anyone is thoroughly researching the possibility that other diseases are being more freely passed than suspected).  And that's my "trivia I wish I'd never tripped over" entry.  I haven't been in a swimming pool since...

PJBoosinger October 5th, 2009 08:54:23 PM

"The harm of selling dog fighting videos for profit to dog fighting enthusiasts is exactly the same as the harm would be of selling child porn to pedophiles."  You may be absolutely correct.  Unfortunately, the proponents of that position did a pretty poor job of evidencing it up from the few briefs I read.

As to your hypothetical, when I get elected dictator, I'll have a LONG list of things I think should be illegal.  In the meantime, I'm rather fond of the US Constitution, including the first amendment, as a vast improvement over prior options.  Our society isn't ready for the world you want, the world certainly isn't ready.  I think the court would rule that video as protected free speech.  I think they should under the current circumstances and law.  In addition to all the other reasons already discussed, outlawing things prematurely merely drives them underground and I don't think that helps anyone, least of all those being harmed.  As I said, no slippery slope here for me.

I certainly think most here consider animal abuse in the light of familiar loved pets but the subject is, of course, much broader than that.  Talk sentient beings all you want and I'd prefer not to see any living creature out right tortured, but mice, alligators, slugs as sentient beings with independent rights; specifying how, when, where I have to kill the mouse or slug or insect or snake that invaded my home?  (Yes, I've chased and hacked a snake to death in my home.  No guilt whatsoever here on that count.)  Somewhere along there you'll lose the vast majority of even liberal Americans.

So where would we stand on videos snatched from all these cameras that are being mounted on every corner.  Many of those belong to individuals and companies.  Could animal abuse, alleged animal abuse, caught on those be posted on youtube?  Sold?

PJBoosinger http://pjboosinger.viviti.com/ October 5th, 2009 09:18:26 PM

PJ: I don't buy the slippery slope argument either. No videos of acts that are illegal and sold for profit and 'enjoyment' does not appear to (me) to be within the intention of free speech and First Amendment.

I also see it the same as child porn, which is illegal to possess & manufacture. Animal cruelty is against the law, we have certain laws defining it. In some opinion, it doesn't go far enough. But where it does (and animal fighting is now criminal with felony attachments in most states), it should be prohibited to reproduce/film/sell for profit those "real" acts.

Barbara A./NH October 5th, 2009 09:53:17 PM

But PJ, what is your answer?

Do you think the act of selling the video in the hypothetical situation I posed is legal?

Stefani October 5th, 2009 10:15:59 PM

OK, sorry, I see your answer.  You think a court would rule the sale of such a video as legal.

Because my point is not even necessarily about the content of hte video as free speech.  It is profiting from the sale of the thing.

Stefani October 5th, 2009 10:17:34 PM

So it's OK if it's not enjoyable or for profit but not OK if it's for profit and "enjoyment".  How do we determine that?  That's really getting into the thought police area which is exactly what free speech protection is intended to prevent.

In my perfect world, the Clan and Skinheads shut up; in theirs, I shut up.  The point of the first amendment is that neither of us has to shut up.  As for "profit", well, that just isn't as easy to define as it appears; just ask the non-profit organizations.  Can I make this type of video and give it to HSUS as a promo to buy other products?  Inherently, I'm looking for a profit on those other items, an indirect profit, but I get it from producing an item we both find abhorrent.  Does that pass muster?

Unfortunately, Congress chose not to make the narrow law you suggest and that's inherently a part of the problem in this case as it would stand a better chance if they had.  The Supremes don't like drafting law so they'll simply decide whether or not the existing law is constitutional or not and then Congress has to start over.  If Congress, mostly lawyers, would abide the Constitution just a wee bit when drafting, we'd have far better laws and better Supreme Court decisions too since they wouldn't be spending time on super broad, super vague laws like this one.

PJBoosinger October 5th, 2009 10:20:50 PM

Stefani, even the IRS can't really define "profit" so you're going to have to at least give me your working definition of that term.

PJBoosinger October 5th, 2009 10:23:38 PM

Legally, I can see both sides - but what has hit me the hardest is seeing the depth of cruelty humans are capable of. God help us all.

dottie October 6th, 2009 07:23:13 AM

PJ, if the IRS can't define profit then, not sure anything I come up with would be accurate.  But in the case I mention, it is using the scenes of criminal activity in videos sold for commercial gain. (As opposed to documentary evidence).

Stefani October 6th, 2009 07:39:48 AM

If you mean documentary evidence in the terms of what is evidence in trials, then there are lawyers and news media who profit.  If you mean that in the sense of what's on websites like HSUS, then those organizations profit.  For me, profit includes money, status, influence and all these can be had by using these videos in even what I would call "appropriate" ways.  But remember that the case at bar doesn't appear to include any videos of criminal activity at all.

I agree with dottie that this is what hits hard: "depth of cruelty humans are capable of".  Part of my frustration on this case is that the prosecutors and HSUS may end up doing more harm than good by having pursued this particular case which may mean we all get to see more of that cruelty than we have in the last decade since this law was passed.  That may be good in the long run because this was and is a "bad" (poorly drafted) law but it doesn't change my frustration.  Moreover, it doesn't change that there will probably be a spike in animal abuse when the decision on this case comes down no matter which way the ruling goes.  Worse than that is knowing the type of cruelty in this case doesn't even get me to the equivalent of the first scuba thermocline, the depth that makes a diver suddenly shiver.

PJBoosinger October 6th, 2009 08:53:41 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/opinion/06tue2.html?_r=1

BTW, anyone who doesn't think HSUS' dogfighting czar John Goodwin gets off on watching these videos has never seen one of his presentations.  HSUS has used this dogfighting "porn" to promote itself, raise money for its highly paid staff and at the same time call for the killing of the victimized dogs (a policy they only recently altered).  So in what way exactly are they better than Stevens?  In what way should they be given a "news or education" exemption to continue to promote themselves using dogfighting porn, while Stevens goes to jail?

If HSUS can sell dogfighting porn, then so can Stevens.  IF he goes to jail for selling dogfighting porn that promotes dogfighting, then so should someone at HSUS

EmilyS October 6th, 2009 10:45:27 AM

Sorry, I meant to say that if it upholds the lower court's actions, this would be the first time the Supreme Court will have ruled against First Amendment protections since 1982.  

Thanks for keeping me on my toes.

Dr. Patty Khuly October 6th, 2009 12:20:53 PM

And the parties have been heard: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_supreme_court_pit_bull_videos

PJBoosinger October 6th, 2009 03:06:41 PM

That man Stevens is a liar.  Accounts of testimony said he expressed that he is against dog fighting.  He has alleged that his video depictions had to do with education around dogs hunting boars.

All you have to do is read excerpts from the tapes(narration) to know that he is a liar and he was promoting dog fighting.

http://humanesociety.org/acf/news/bob_stevens_video_excerpts.html#

Stefani October 6th, 2009 05:57:38 PM

I'm afraid just being a liar doesn't bother me much; everyone lies to some degree or another.  Now, if he lied under oath (and I don't think he did), he could be tried for perjury.  He could well be against dog fighting and still be promoting videos of dog fighting in/from Japan.  Most of us do things at work that we don't necessarily agree with wholeheartedly because it's a part of the job.  Still, none of that has any impact on the case at bar's merits, or lack thereof.

"appears doomed" is what I think the NBC reporter said about the government's case this evening :)  This is 1 of at least 3 free speech cases involving allegedly overreaching federal statutes.  I have a feeling the Supremes are gearing up to send a message to governments.  Since the other 2 don't involve a pet issue, I'll take the rest of that discussion elsewhere.

PJBoosinger http://pjboosinger.viviti.com/ October 6th, 2009 09:00:21 PM

PJ, did you read the narration of the videos?  A person selling videos narrated with those words cannot possibly be against dog fighting, and is definitely promoting it.

Stefani October 6th, 2009 10:55:04 PM

You've convinced me he's a good salesman but that's all.  Even if he does support and approve of dog fighting, he wasn't charged with that; which is really the point of all this.  We'd have an entirely different discussion if animal abuse or dog fighting was what he was charged with.  I couldn't disagree more with the Clan or Skinheads or FLDS or... (that's a very long list) but I'll fight to my dying breath their right to run their mouths, even on video.  People have a right to their thoughts and beliefs, we stop their ACTIONS with laws; not their thoughts and beliefs not acted upon.

PJBoosinger October 6th, 2009 11:30:58 PM

As I see this continuing debate--about the "law" and what it does and doesn't do, I'm a bit frustrated that my explanation seems to be ignored by a couple of notable ongoing posters dominating the postings. I did make a couple of typos-sorry.

Again, in spite of what the defendant's attorney is falsely arguing, this is not only the second time this type of issue has come up under the 1st A. Also, after my reading reports now of what questions the various members of the court asked, it is quite evident to me that my analysis is very much on track.

So, I very much respect everyone's right to post their opinions and post from their feellngs, even if sometimes the facts and legal posture of this case are wrong or distorted.

My feelings against these acts in these films, sport hunting, canned hunts, snuff films, crush films, people killing kittens by stoning them, setting them on fire etc. etc. etc, (and any other animals) are so intense that I dare not begin carrying on b/c I will take up an infinite amount of posts.

After reviewing the questions asked by the court in oral argument, I now guess that the court will, for the reasons I and others described, hold that the law is overbroad in this case, even though it will also in dicta (not the rule of the case) make quite clear its opposition to the acts in the film, also indicating how laws(s) could be made to further address these types of abuses on animals. There's just no apparent way to prove that these particular films will or have caused anyone to commit such abuse, solely on the basis of these films. And apparently there is not a way to enforce the law in this case without having to view animal abuse footage used for other reasons to also be illegal.

SH October 7th, 2009 03:21:14 PM

SH: I agree. Based on the oral arguments, I believe my prediction reigns. The 1999 law is going down. 

Dr. Patty Khuly October 7th, 2009 07:35:33 PM

Stefani, Bob Stevens was not accused of dogfighting.  If there was evidence that he was a dogfighter, he would have been charged with dogfighting.

Your comments here could be considered libel.

EmilyS October 10th, 2009 02:48:05 PM

LOL! Emily!  Just throwing the word "libel" at me no longer scares me, but good try!

I said that his videos encourage dogfighting based on those transcripts.  I stand by that statement.

I will, and just did, make it again. 

I never said he personally fought dogs.  I said that his videos were promoting dog fighting.  I don't know how anyone could come to any other conclusion based on those transcripts.

The word libel is thrown around far too loosely, and has long since stopped having the desired effect on me, along with the words "defamation" and "slander."

YOU don't decide what is libel, defamation and slander.  Only a court can do that.

Feel free to sue me for saying that this man's videos promoted dog fighting.  It would be a huge waste of your money and you probabaly don't have standing to sue, but hey -- why not pop down $1k or more to discuss it over with a lawyer?  I think that's a GREAT idea!

Stefani October 11th, 2009 08:14:47 PM

But PS Emily, here is something else you might want to try to sue me for:

It seems entirely implausible to me that someone would produce and sell enthusiastically narrated videos about training fighting dogs without ever having at least been a complicit spectator at a dog fight.  Seems implausible.

Note that I am not stating a fact about Stevens, I am just telling you that it is very hard for me to believe that ANYONE who produced such videos for sale would never have attended a dog fight.  Highly implausible.

There!  Since you don't know libel and defamation law, you will probably think you can sue me for that statement!  Give it a try!!!!

Stefani October 11th, 2009 08:20:45 PM

Here is a quote of something that Steven's said which appeared in the NYT:

""Because I'm not going to show any participants or spectators, I have to cut a lot of it," Mr. Stevens, who has a folksy manner and looks a little like the actor Bill Murray, said on one of the videos. "I only show certain action clips I think you'll enjoy." Mr. Stevens did not try to hide the identities of those involved in the Japanese dogfights . . . "

The article goes on to say that these statements imply knowledge that the activity was illegal (since he was avoiding using footage of spectators in the US where it is illegal but not Japan where it is legal). 

 Also, again, makes it hard to believe that the was never personally at a dogfight. IF he was, btw, being a spectator at a dogfight is a felony in VA

http://www.hsus.org/acf/fighting/dogfight/ranking_state_dogfighting_laws.html

Stefani October 14th, 2009 03:37:41 PM