Supreme Injustice – Podcast #007
Recently I received a notice from one of the documentary organizations to which I subscribe relating that they were celebrating a recent Supreme Court ruling. That ruling overturned a law that had prohibited anyone from profiting from films showing cruelty to animals. Documentary filmmakers were concerned that the law, being so broad, might have made it difficult for them to make the ilms they want to make or cover the topics they want to cover.Others, especially animal lovers, disparaged the ruling and feared a resurgence in crush videos, films of small animals being crushed under a woman’s high heels as a sexual fetish. The man challenging a conviction under the federal law had been making videos of dogfighting and profiting from them, feeding the public’s appeitite for gratuious violence. Here is what the International Documentary Association said in their notice:
Your IDA, along with Film Independent (FIND), the Independent Feature Project (IFP) and the Independent Film and Television Alliance (IFTA), filed an Amicus Brief to help the Court understand the threat to documentary filmmakers. The case involved a documentary filmmaker by the name of Robert J. Stevens, who had included clips of a legal Japanese dog fight in a film he produced. The government did not argue that Stevens shot the film or was even present at the shoot. Since dog fighting is illegal in the United States, Stevens was arrested, tried and sentenced to 37 months in federal prison–a term longer than Michael Vick received for actually participating in dog fights in the United States. Whatever one might think of Mr. Stevens and his films, the threat to filmmakers had to be removed. That is when IDA stepped in.
As both someone involved with documentary films and someone who is an abolitionist animal rights proponent, this ruling brought up many conflicting considerations. I have no background in law but do have a background related to the criminal justice system. I well know that often, judges are called upon to make legal rulings that may offend their personal beliefs. This was an 8-1 ruling, so it was very clear cut in the Court’s collective mind. The argument was that the federal law banning depictions of animal cruelty was too broad and ran afoul of First Amendment Rights. The Court continued to support, however, limitations with respect to the First Amendment when it came to child pornography and obscenity.
National Public Radio (NPR) wrote a brief supporting the majority position of SCOTUS, and many animal advocates voiced their ire and threatened to quit supporting NPR. While their position is understandable, one wonders how many of those irate readers are vegan. HSUS wrote a brief to support the law, yet they do not promote veganism within their organization, most likely to avoid offending donors. Two of the most heart-wrenching categories of animals — puppies and small furry creatures like kittens — are often used by the major animal protection organizations such as PETA and HSUS to garner funding from their members. PETA claims that about half of their members are not vegetarian, not to mention vegan, and HSUS is not even counting. One of the problems in the Court (SCOTUS) ruling is the moral confusion that is in evidence; it is clearly a problem of one type of animal abuse being unacceptable while many other kinds are acceptable. This confusion is further increased by those who claim to be animal advocates while not taking a stand for all the animals in all situations. The idea of belonging to an organization is appealing, but the real work must be done at the grassroots level, working to educate people about how their own behaviors impact animals. By supporting organizations that own stock and partner with some of the worst animal exploiters, corporations like KFC, Tyson, and pizza companies Papa Johns and Dominoes, we only further the public’s moral confusion which only hurts animals. Did you see the recent publicity about the vegans marrying at a KFC? At a place that sells animal flesh – talk about moral confusion!
As long as animals are treated as commodities, as long as they are the property of human beings of various levels of character, they will be as vulnerable as those innocent creatures in crush videos and dogfighting films. Animals as property – that is the real supreme injustice.
facebook 
twitter 
email Tags: animal cruelty, Animals, chattal property, crush videos, Lex Appeal, Supreme Court, U.S. vs. Stevens
Subscribe RSS
Fascinating post, thank you! I agree the real injustice is the commodification of animals. I would also say that the U.S. is plagued by the constant back and forth between individuals’ rights and the greater good. We are a rabidly individualistic society when it comes to that point, and we routinely overlook animals (and children!) when it comes to the issue of the “greater good.”
It seems like within this whole debate, there could have been a discussion of the difference between making money from films showing animal cruelty and making money from films showing animal cruelty as entertainment or as a practice of fetishism. What happens to those companies and individuals who work to expose animal cruelty through the use of videos, who also make a living at it? Rattle the Cage Prods. springs to mind, a great company from what I know of it, and one which works to expose animal cruelty through film and video projects.
There was more discussion than it was possible to post; as the podcast said, the response from SCOTUS was over 40 pages. For more detailed information, listen to the Supreme Podcast in full, or the Lex Appeals podcasts (2) on the same subject. You can also find more information at the IDA site posted. The problem was that the law was not specific, which is why I queried why all the lawyers in the Senate could not have developed a better law- low priority perhaps?