That’s why I think a good case can be made that the man who was convicted for having videos of Japanese dog fights was within his constitutional rights.
The ACLU is involved in defending his rights. Good for them.
If a Holocaust denier can spout his bile in this country, I don’t see why someone couldn’t have a video of a dog fight. Living in a free society means that we sometimes have to tolerate extremely odious things.
But the animal rightsniks don’t see it that way. Vote on the poll to see what I mean. (Granted, most of the people who subscribe to get these e-mail alerts are clueless liberals, like me. My guess is many of these people think with their emotions.)
The reason why child pornography is banned in this country is because the pornography can continue to harm the victim. I don’t think a dog that has been fought will be harmed by seeing a video of it. That’s the reason why it’s not considered free speech.
Dog fighting is a criminal activity, but we do have the First Amendment.
And I don’t see the court going the same way as the child pornography.
I realize you had your tongue planted firmly in cheek, but it’s not so much a matter of being clueless liberals as being activists. It’s almost tautological – almost by definition, activists as a class are the very people who don’t draw the distinction between private obligations and public policy. Or, perhaps more accurately, they see the distinction, and try to close it.
I’m pretty much your diametric opposite politically, but I really can’t stand activists of all types, including (especially?) those who think they’re on my side. I’ve always had more issue with those who don’t draw a distinction between private behavior and public policy than with those whom I disagree on public policy. Pretty much all my friends are clueless liberals; as long as they’re not blocking traffic, I don’t much mind that they’re totally, utterly wrong about everything :)
As I do remember, you and I have similar views about gun ownership (2nd amendment is an individual right, not a collective one.) I’m not 100 percent on their page.
I think some people on the left have authoritarian personalities (well, there is Mao, but I mean this in a broader sense than that). I know what I said is heresy to many. Only right wingers can have authoritarian personalities, as per that famous book, which was horrible because it ignored left wing authoritarians.
Many animal rights people have this in them. I’ve seen it pop up time and again. I recently got a comment that included “Fuck off” and some other colorful language on one of my posts that featured a video of some golden retrievers baying a badger.
I get bummed out by crazy right-wing activists because the whole reason I tend towards that side of the aisle is that, theoretically, people who allegedly believe in less intrusive government should be less inclined towards, ummm, crazy activism by the government. In practice, it seems a universal truth that everyone knows what’s best for everyone else, and therefore ‘There oughtta be a law!”
I made a parallel between guns & BSL because it seems like the exact same problem: it’s a lot easier to pass a law than it is to change behavior, so we pass laws to make ourselves feel better regardless of what is actually happening on the ground. I’m hardly a 2nd Amendment scholar or advocate, but having spent my entire life in cities where guns were supposedly illegal, I can’t help but notice the disconnect between the law on paper and the law as practiced.
Oh, I agree.
I think people like to support laws they think work, and it makes them feel good. In reality, they don’t work and have lots of costs. Costs that may not be universally shared among the population.
As another clueless liberal, I agree with you! As Justice Sotomayor commented, there’s more dogfighting footage in a recent documentary AGAINST dogfighting than in Steven’s videos. And CNN and Animal Planet have exposed more people to dogfighting than all the publishers of gamedog magazines put together. And of course, HSUS has built up its organization promoting and promulgating dogfighting footage. Stevens is a piker compared to those sources.
“pornography can continue to harm the victim.” Sure. Doesn’t dog fighting harm the victim then, the looser?
It is ‘natural’ if dogs are fighting on their on but when it is a match arranged & videoed by people I find it criminal, unethical and beyond any justification.
It sure isn’t in my list of “odious things to tolerate” in our modern society!
um, labpack, of course dogfighting itself is cruel to the dogs.
Dogfighting is illegal in all US states and a federal felony when state lines are crossed.
The issue is VIDEOS of dogfights. The videos don’t hurt the dogs (victims) so they are not comparable to porn. You may find the videos to be criminal, or wish they were criminal. The USSC is about to decide that the law at issue is unconstitutional
EmilyS, there obviously is a huge defect in my ability to understand your constitutional rights in this dogfighting VIDEO issue…
So, dogfights are illegal but to have them videod for the needs of fellow enthusiasts is perfectly ok – becouse WATCHING the videos don’t hurt the dogs…
I give up.