Written into the United States legal system are categories of speech that have been deemed too inflammatory or damaging to be protected by the first amendment. Considered literally "unworthy of constitutional protection," (Liptak, NY Times,) these categories include child pornography, obscenity and the amusingly-named "fighting words."
This past Monday the Supreme Court agreed to open the debate whether to add depictions of cruelty to animals to this exclusive group.
To clarify, the legality of cruelty to animals is not being debated, only the legality of depicting cruelty to animals.
Equally in need of clarification is the word "depiction." In this case the word refers to recorded proof of actual cruelty to animals; Jack Black punting Will Ferrell's dog in Anchorman doesn't count.
There has to be a logical reason to make a form of expression illegal. Obscenity is illegal based on the belief that people should be allowed to choose to a certain extent their level of exposure to words they find offensive. Child pornography is illegal to depict out of the belief that it would be psychologically damaging to the children depicted to view the imagery later in life.
What is the reason for outlawing the depiction of animal cruelty? Isn't it enough that the cruelty itself is illegal, and punishable with jail time? (How you doing by the way, Mr. Vick?)
Wouldn't it make more logical sense to first concentrate on depictions of atrocities against humans, such as the reviled bumfights series or videotaped pranks on those with mental illnesses or disabilities?
It's not that they don't matter because they're animals; it's just that we need to look out for our own species first.
Limiting speech is a process that tends to snowball, too. Once we limit one form of expression it is easier for the next limitation to be accepted by the masses.
One is forced to wonder, given the vocal support by the Humane Society of the United States, whether the Humane Society will not suffer for this ban, too. After all, their most effective donation campaigns depict cruelty to animals; once those are illegal, will they be able to get any funding? Or will the absence of our guilt be a mortal wound to them?
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
