Supreme Court Rules Dog Fighting Videos Legal

I'm about to be late for cardiology rounds so I'll have to write more on this later, but I spent a little bit of time yesterday pondering free speech and dog fighting videos. If you didn't read about it yesterday morning, here's a link to the New York Times article and here's a link to CNN's article on the subject.

The only time the Supreme Court has ruled a form of speech undeserving of First Amendement protection was child pornography, back in 1982. Chief Justice Roberts stated that child pornography is a special case because "it is intrinsically linked to the underlying abuse."

How are videos of dog fighting not intrinsically linked to the underlying abuse?

Justice Alito, the lone dissenter, did argue for the similarity of child pornography to animal cruelty, stating that it is difficult to eliminate both practices without also eliminating their depictions and that neither make meaningful contributions to society. (per NYT article)

It seems the crux of the issue is not whether dog fighting videos are intrinsically linked to the practice of dog fighting but whether the law was too broad in its scope. Since the law made it illegal to sell depictions of animal cruelty, Justice Roberts argued that it makes the sale of videos or magazines depicting hunting illegal in places where hunting is banned. I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to law, but I don't totally see how this follows. I guess it depends on whether hunting is classified as animal cruelty, and perhaps if it is banned it is then classified as animal cruelty? I am personally not opposed to hunting and see a big distinction between hunting and dog fighting or crush videos but it seems the law somehow failed to make a distinction between these activities.

If it is the case that the law was struck down because it was too broad, then I certainly hope that it will be replaced by a law more narrowly defining animal cruelty in very little time. The Humane Society called for this, stating "Congress should within a week introduce narrowly crafted legislation to deal with animal crush videos and illegal animal fighting activities." (per NYT article)

In the absence of new legislation, it seems a given that there will be a surge in the sale and production of crush videos, in which women stomp animals to death. That would be a step backwards since the law had effectively curtailed the market for crush videos since being passed in 1999.

I have to get back to studying, but this is definitely interesting stuff to ponder and if I had a little more time I would go and pull the actual text of the rulings themselves. It's certainly interesting to me that the Humane Society, other animal rights groups and 26 states backed the government striking down this law (per CNN's article).

I also wonder about freedom of speech with regards to artistic expression. The whole debate also brings to mind one of my good friend's favorite films, Amores Perros, a 2000 Mexican film that includes graphic depictions of dog fighting (I don't know to what extent the dogs were injured in the filming but it is disturbing and meant to be so). I do think there is value in that film, and so I can see how it becomes a thorny question to protect both free speech and halt animal cruelty.