According to a story appearing in the New York Times this week, the U.S. Supreme Court may soon hear an unusual First Amendment case
that could put some high-profile animal rights groups out of business.
And they don't even seem to see it coming. The case surrounds a
1999 federal law that criminalized the creation, sale, or possession of
videos and photos depicting animal cruelty for commercial gain. The law has since been struck down, but now the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
is rallying support to restore it because it made distributing
dogfighting videos [...] illegal.
We have just one question: Is fundraising to foot the bill for
six-figure activist salaries considered "commercial gain"?
I agree with those dastardly villains at CCF that this raises a very interesting point.Since most of the fundraising efforts of the pseudo animal welfare groups such as the Hsus and Peta involve using the shock value of stock graphic images, if they are successful in reinstating the law prohibiting the use of such images for commercial purposes, it would only make sense that they'd have to shut down this very lucrative aspect of their fundraising efforts.
Since I don't care a whit for people who abuse animals, and have even less tolerance for those who peddle what I call cruelty porn regardless of who they are, I'm hoping they all lose out, big-time.
I don't see this as a freedom of speech issue, since the speech in this case involves documentation of a felony and its subsequent distribution for financial gain. It should therefore not be protected under freedom of expression rights, in my opinion.
There is a slight problem with that line of thinking though. Unless the law is surgically applied to cover only the kinds of graphic images discussed, it could easily include books, newspaper and journal articles and even movies that are produced about real crime situations. In fact, I can see how it might even extend to fictional creations.
That's the trouble with these kinds of knee-jerk ideas, there's always another angle. I imagine that's why the decision overturning the law was taken.
