Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 6:14 AM
Tue Nov 24
46 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
Wonder what he would make of the deal Times reporter Jeremy Peters struck with Paterson chief of staff Charles O'Byrne to approve quotes from an interview before publication. (Thank you John Cook: [gawker.com] )
11/11/09
We are unable to comment on this post due to numerous publication constraints.
I knew I shouldn't have given the editors the right to check my quotes.
Actually, the NYT should be familiar with this sort of quote-check pre-publication approval. John Cook showed last week how reporter Jeremy Peters entered into a similar deal with Paterson chief of staff Charles O'Byrne. [gawker.com]
11/11/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
I've already argued this 'til I'm blue in the face, but as you can read below think that there should also be laws against distributing images of animal cruelty that don't fit into the exceptions outlined in the statute, and said exceptions are pretty broad.
10/06/09
"Whoever knowingly creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both." The exceptions are "any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value."
In other words, as to all of these slippery-slope arguments, the statute makes an exception for most of the "what ifs?" people are asking in these comments. A picture of a bull fight in a documentary about the culture of Spain is not getting anyone sent to the pokey.
And before people get bent out of shape worried about the pros and cons of figuring out what belongs in those categories, courts do that kind of thing all the time under obscenity laws. To strike down these laws would open up the floodgates to all kinds of awful depictions of animal cruelty through animal snuff and crush vidoes. I really think the law promotes a legitimate state interest and is not so overbroad or vague to be struck down. At least I'm hoping so.
(And sorry for my own editorial; I just think this post was missing some important detail about the actual statute itself, rather than just what the NYTimes and the Humane Society think about it).
10/06/09
For example, is the "documentary" truly for cultural education, or is it masked as such to bypass the law, and actually sell directly to those with no true intention other than to watch acts of animal cruelty? Its a slippery slope to assume that all courts will interpret the intent of the media the same, leaving a truly scary precedent for prosecutions in both directions.
Say what you will, but assuming a decision to prosecute based on a court's record with obsenity cases would translate to animal cruelty media is not a fair assumption, as social and personal attitudes on the subject are far more spread than the general norms on issues like child pornography. They simply are comparable. I doubt you would argue that there is as strong a divide between animal rights issues as there are for child welfare issues?
Furthermore, noone is proposing striking down existing laws. There are plenty in place that constitute reasonable grounds for prosecution regarding acts and depiction of animal cruelty...the issue at hand is a NEW law that creates a FAR greater playing field for potentially agenda driven censorship, opening up floodgates threatening free speech rather than effectively increasing sensitivity to animal cruelty.
10/06/09
When I mentioned obscenity, I was not talking about child pornography. The rules on that are pretty cut and dried.
Laws exist regulating just about any kind of extreme expression, and courts have a good system in place to parse out what is protected and what is not.
And in fact, I think the arena of depictions of animal cruelty is a better place for this kind of analysis than even obscenity. There's a lot more grey area in what kind of so-called obscene behavior has some kind of merit, because sex is a part of the human condition. It serves a purpose and is kind of inevitable. Torturing animals does not, and its pretty obvious when someone decides to use pictures of animal cruelty to prove and legitimate artistic, historical, etc. point and when it's not.
10/06/09
....well its nice that its obvious to you, but I think that a hunter for example does not believe that his/her sport is the murderous bloodbath that an animal rights activist does, including the possible video that may accompany it. (And although I personally think its unfair to compare hunting with dog fighting, they do technically both fall into the arena of legality in animal rights). The views are way way too far separated on this issue to assume there is no grey area. If there wasn't a vast grey area then we wouldn't be discussing this case reaching the Supreme Court.
Why isnt Animal Planet being prosecuted against this law for "Animal Cops?" or hunting shows? Because the showing of the program is only for education? Really? The double standard is exactly why this law needs to be double checked against the 1st amendment and why it is the fundamental argument against this law... that bias and agenda cannot be ruled out to guarantee a just act of freedom of speech or expression. I believe its less about the Stevens case as is, but more the implications of allowing his individual prosecution.
I stand corrected in my statement that this is a new law...obviously what I meant to convey is that this is the Supreme Court review, more or less, of the broader implications of the current, as raised by the Stevens case.
The floodgates for exploitative or agenda driven lawsuits open up whenever a constitutional right is limited with highly subjective, broad language exceptions, as it is here, and especially if it is put into practical use. I personally believe that Stevens is within his first amendment right, however much I might be disgusted by it. If the redefining or overturning of a law that would otherwise prosecute him is necessary to prevent ANY potentially oppressive litigation in its name, then I"m all for it. Better a guilty man be free, than an innocent be jailed. But you are free to disagree with me of course. Its your first amendment right....
10/06/09
And you really think there is some kind of "grey area" as to whether the Animal Planet show Animal Cops serves an educational purpose? Seriously?
10/06/09
But if you read the last paragraph of my previous post, you see that I also believe that there is some danger in the interpretation of this law as it is written. If I were the only one with this view, it would not be on the Supreme Court's palate.
So yes, my slippery slope argument DOES hold water. It is not MY sole argument in fact but a consensual view of a great number of your fellow citizens who care less about Stevens personal guilt, but about his case's implications.
I'm not picking a side as to whether or not the media in question actually depicted animal cruelty but whether the act of possession/distribution is/will be considered legal or illegal. BIG DIFFERENCE.
So feel free to continue an attack on whether or not disregard for animal cruelty is being perpetuated here, (as I'm certainly not taking it personal), but consider that the slippery slope in question is not about the broad ethics of animal cruelty, but about what litigation is potentially pursuable (and potentially abuse-able) to our first amendment rights.
10/06/09
I just don't think that your arguments regarding what "hunters think" or what's on Animal Planet are some of them. The ethics of animal cruelty are in fact more of what the Third Cicuit focused on than ideas of vagueness and overbroadness in the statue, which is what you seem to be concerned about. The issue the Third Circuit addressed was whether preventing animal cruelty was a sufficient compelling state interest to justify the statute's restrictions. I think it is, you obviously disagree. Doesn't mean you are pro-animal cruelty.
And pardon the irony, but I think it's safe to say we have beaten this horse to death.
10/06/09
10/06/09
My greater concern, setting the free speech issue aside, is that this could open up the doors for arbitrary prosecution.
Stevens had footage from dog fighting in Japan, where it is perfectly legal and he says that it's in the videos in an educational context and is intended to be cautionary.
If you convict him, would this effectively ban hunting and fishing shows? What about videos of Bullfighting, or the running of the bulls, or the squirrel catapult? What about videos of cats getting wet and crying and freaking out like it's lava but only because cats are neurotic? Now obviously a jury could sort this stuff out, but do we then have to deal with people paying legal fees for simply having some stupid pet video that some overzealous prosecutor felt was cruelty?
Furthermore, I think the absurd distinction we draw between acceptable cruelty and unacceptable cruelty is, well... absurd.
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
I think "possession" of the tapes is considered an offense (unless the law is something goofy like drug laws in Holland), and importing the tapes from Japan would be considered "smuggling contraband" (e.g. opium may be legal in Afghanistan, but it's not legal here).
10/06/09
I am so overwhelmingly against dog fighting, and I think it's heinous. I wish Michael Vick had been locked away for much, much longer.
I think videos of dog fighting are also awful, regardless of the reason, but do I think we should make them illegal? Not sure. Do I think the current law is far too vague, broad, and unacceptable? Yes.
10/06/09
10/06/09
Thanks for the legal opinion. FWIW, though, the First Amendment was a guarantee of political speech, and the courts have often acted to curb commercial speech (see: cigarette advertising), and obscenity.
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09