Freedom of Speech vs. Animal Cruelty

Freedom of Speech or Animal Cruelty...

Which is more important to you?

vs.

The Supreme Court is deliberating U.S. vs. Stevens. The dilemma of this case lies with that very question: "Which is more important?" Stevens was convicted and sentenced to 37 months in prison under the 1999 law that prevents profiting from animal abuse. He appealed arguing that his sentence was 14 months LONGER than Michael Vick, who actually ran an illegal dogfight ring.

Michael Vick only got 23 months for running a dogfight ring. Why? Maybe, it's because he's famous? hmmm...

It is interesting to note that Robert Stevens documented, produced, and distributed videos that depict gruesome dog fights, but he did NOT participate in them.

I can understand why the Congress wants to ban videos that depict animal cruelty. A profitable market for animal abuse videos will promote production of those videos and eventually lead to more animal abuse. Hence, ban on these videos should decrease the incentive to abuse animals. According to Mark Sherman from The Daily Texan, law was a success: "The government said the videos virtually disappeared after the law took effect. Only three people have been prosecuted under the law" (Sherman).

The videos disappeared from the market... so what?

Even though the videos, or footage of animal abuse, have disappeared, animal abuse itself has not disappeared. The effect of the law on animal abuse itself is unknown. Perhaps it successfully got rid of the videos, but the videos serve as nothing more than EVIDENCE of animal cruelty. The consumers of the videos obviously promote animal abuse and perhaps practice animal abuse.

It's not just children, wife, and (sometimes) husband that are abused in a family.

The real importance of this law is that it restricts freedom of speech, which is clearly protected by the first amendment. Everyone is entitled to his opinion and should be able to express it. However, this ban on the videos is another form of censoring public opinion. Yes, it was an abhorrent and despicable thing for Stevens to profit off of these videos. However, he DID NOT participate in these activities. Furthermore, who is to judge whether these videos were political or, perhaps, educational? Stevens was simply expressing himself and profiting from his work.

When the government starts censoring our opinions one by one, sooner or later our opinions will be in accordance with the government's view.

If anyone should be punished, it should be the ones who participated in the dog fights depicted in the videos. Hunting down and prosecuting the participants of animal cruelty should be enough to reduce the production of dogfight videos. As a result, producers like Stevens should soon run out of business. This way, we can preserve our freedom of speech while achieving the goal to reduce animal cruelty.

People like Stevens will need to find a different line of work.

Had Stevens participated in the activities, he should have been punished to the fullest extent of the animal cruelty law, but since he did not, he should be exonerated. It is sad that there are people who profit from such abominable acts, but for the sake of our freedom of speech, some sacrifices are necessary.

For me, upholding freedom of speech is more important than protecting animal rights.