tags: cockfighting, animal cruelty, First Amendment, free speech
When I learned recently that my neighbors regularly engage in cockfighting and dog fighting (illegally, of course) I was thoroughly disgusted with them. But I learned just today that cockfighting is also streamed over the internet, which shouldn't be surprising to anyone who is familiar with the 'net, but nonetheless, I think it is absolutely disgusting and distressing, since it serves to underline the basic lack of compassion and empathy that some people have for animals in general, and for birds specifically.
However, the question of whether the First Amendment allows the government to ban depictions of illegal conduct, as opposed to the conduct itself, is largely untested and thus, is a difficult one to answer.
In the Florida suit, the company, Advanced Consulting and Marketing, says it streams cockfights from Puerto Rico, where they are legal. Their excuse for such cruelty?
"As bullfighting is part of Spanish culture and as violent human fighting is part of our culture, cockfighting is part of Puerto Rican culture."
In 1999, President Bill Clinton signed a bill into law that makes it a crime to sell depictions of "conduct in which a living animal is intentionally mutilated, maimed, tortured, wounded or killed" for commercial gain. Even though there is an exception for works of "serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value," cockfighting, dog fighting, bull fighting and the like hardly fit into any of these categories.
There are some interesting arguments. For example, prosecutors said the 1999 law was a constitutional abridgement of speech, similar to laws prohibiting obscenity, child pornography, incitement and fighting words. According to their brief, the law "prohibits a new class of speech, so lacking in value, that it should not receive First Amendment protection."
What do you think? On one hand, I think that freedom of speech should be protected, but is broadcasting images of animal cruelty -- an activity that is illegal in nearly every state in the USA -- something that should be protected?
[story]
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Off topic, but I wondered if you had heard about gangs of mice killing island birds .
I wonder whether the word "sell" affects the constitutionality at all.
The exception you mentioned is what makes the law constitutional -- it expressly embodies the Supreme Court standard about where the outer limit of the First Amendment is. If it's truly artistic or journalistic, then it's protected. But to make animals fight for the sole purpose of filming that and selling it to make a profit is just sadism and greed, not art or religion. The material isn't a documentary about animal fighting or something. Congress is constitutionally empowered to regulate this, in order to stop the cruel conduct.
I'm not a lawyer so I don't know about what the law/constitution says. However, I do know that things like that should be illegal.
I think it's a really lame excuse to say that it's not illegal in other places. It's illegal here not because people arbitrarily decided something on the toss of a coin, but because it is animal cruelty and because we are morally opposed to such acts. To allow people to broadcast stuff like that is ridiculous (unless for "scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value". And notice I excluded religious and political reasons).
Oran_Taran; I would also exclude the journalistic & artistic reasons.
I find it difficult to envision a journalistic reason apart from an expose and then the shown cruelty should be minimal.
I can think of no artistic reason for showing cuelty to animals; if a human is the subject and is willing then it could possibly be artistic.
Historical? Reporting that it happened OK, re-enactment no.
Educational?
In Spain they condone torturing bulls in an arena as a cultural activity, seems that in some parts of Europe we have the same problem as to what is acceptable.
I think the law is constitutional. If elements of our culture are now finding amusement in watching videotapes of dogs or roosters maul each other then we really are going down the tubes. There have to be at least some standards in place.
There's two separate issues here... certainly cockfighting et al are brutal and abusive, and in most of America, it is rightly banned. In Peurto Rico it is apparently not illegal, and it may or may not be politically practical to make it so.
The real issue here is that the Internet naturally allows people anywhere to watch the cockfights happening in Peurto Rico. Now, I don't have problems with government regulation of true broadcast media. But regulation of private communications is another matter, and the enforcement of the law here would require just that. Also, unenforcable laws make for very bad policy!
Chris' Wills: I would also exclude the journalistic & artistic reasons.
I included Journalistic reasons for the same reason I included educational reasons. Shows like "taboo" in the national geographic channel, meant to educate people about what is going on around the world, should be allowed IMO. Same goes for that whole north korea thing, the prisons documentaries, etc. Isn't exposing and educating about what's going on the basic reason for journalism (supposedly anyway)?
I included "artistic reasons" because I messed up and copied too much :P That shouldn't be allowed.
David Harmon: But regulation of private communications is another matter, and the enforcement of the law here would require just that. Also, unenforcable laws make for very bad policy!
So (if it were legal in other countries) it should be legal for people to get child pornography from private communications too? I don't know how they enforce child pornography, but I'm guessing they could do the same for animal cruelty.
Interesting discussion.
The issue, as I see it, is that the event takes place regardless of whether cameras are present. Cockfighting in Puerto Rico was introduced and became entrenched in the culture during the Spanish occupation - long before cameras. The event is not "staged" for the streaming content subscriber... but is a very competitive sport practiced by folks who take the tradition and the challenge very seriously. And today's Puerto Ricans have a right to access their culture thru technology. Who are we to say they don't? Do we have the right to be cultural imperialists? Granted, Puerto Ricans are obliged to follow the laws here in the mainland and resist their urge to engage in cockfighting, but I fail to see why they should be prohibited from checking out how their favorite breeders are performing back at the Club Gallistico.
Regardless of how one feels personally about particular art, literature, porn, or even depictions of animal fighting - the right to publish, express and even sell "offensive" material is an inherent and important right is a "free" democracy and should remain so. It is absured to compare depictions of Puerto Rican cockfighting to those of child porn. Regardless of the wailings of the animal rightists, chickens are not children. Let's keep things in perspective: We can and should uphold our Constitutional rights, and we should retain our rights to enjoy the 3-piece extra crispy dinner from KFC, lick our fingers, and if we want, watch Puerto Rican chickens kick butt on the internet.
True, that is what journalism is meant to do, and in such cases I completely agree with you.
My worry is that journalists/media will use it as an excuse not to condemn or educate but to try and boost ratings; but this worry shouldn't be used to prevent such exposes as this would prevent the greater good that can come out of publicising such activities.
I believe we need to examine what constitutes cruelty. Killing unborn babies appears to be cruel to some of us. Some of us don't believe letting two chickens prove the survival of the fittest rule is really cruel.
What constitutes cruelty is the knowing, direct unnecessary infliction of suffering to another entity, which causes an increase in the net amount of suffering in the universe.
I say direct because someone isn't usually considered "cruel" if they buy a phone instead of donating that money to charity.
Abortion (insofar as it is legal) is not cruelty because the evidence indicates that fetuses at that stage they cannot experience suffering. Plus, the suffering that may be caused by the death of a fetus, even if it could experience such emotions, is probably far outweighed by the suffering caused by the mother if the abortion were not performed.