Editorial: Dogfights and civil rights

Depictions of animal abuse are disgusting, but like many disgusting things, they warrant… Depictions of animal abuse are disgusting, but like many disgusting things, they warrant protection under the First Amendment. When discussing free speech, idealists will cite people like Thomas Jefferson, Voltaire or even Larry Flynt. Constitutional advocates probably will not name drop videos of pit bulls mauling pigs, though a current Supreme Court case involving such footage, U.S. v. Stevens, could prove as important as those icons.

Federal authorities arrested and ultimately convicted Robert Stevens for selling pit bull training videos that contained clips of dog fights and a pit bull shredding a pig. A 1999 federal law prohibits the creation, sale or possession of animal cruelty depictions for commercial gain.

Stevens said the footage was intended to show the proper and improper ways to train a pit bull to hunt. We are meant to assume the dog fights were the wrong way to train pit bulls, whereas the porcine slaughter showcased a job well done.

Few would deny that pureeing Babe is a vile act, but the law that allowed for Stevens’ arrest does not prohibit animal cruelty, just the trafficking of its depictions. The U.S. Third Circuit Court overturned his conviction on the grounds of free speech, and now the Supreme Court has been called in to decide the final verdict on whether these depictions are protected.

If the Court rules against Stevens, it would be the first time a category of speech was ruled unprotected since child pornography, according to The New York Times.

The law excepts “any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value,” similar to other judicial distinctions between protected speech and bare obscenity. It was enacted as a reaction to “crush videos,” which feed the fetish of watching women stomp on kittens’ heads — for real.

It’s weird, but simply possessing the imagery should not be illegal.

Observers must distinguish between the act and the image. Other laws already criminalize animal abuse, so only the footage is in question. Feral animals lacerating each other do not inspire popcorn-munching Saturday nights gathered around the television. Or do they?

Nobody can deny the allure of “Shark Week.”

This popular programming is as legal as the morbid “Faces of Death” series, which shows actual footage of murders and suicides. In these cases, though, the defense would hinge on federal exceptions for journalistic or artistic value.

In Stevens’ case, he claims that his videos help dog owners train their pit bulls to hunt — something that seemingly would have educational and artistic value.

Dogs ripping apart pigs can make anyone squirm. Yet during this season, an orange army of Americans will take to the woods with their quivers, looking to harpoon a deer. Other sportsmen will slay turkey, pheasant and foxes, with some bringing trained dogs for the hunt. Videos of their Appalachian prowess will saturate commercial television.

This is not considered animal cruelty, but it’s only because these hunters have state-sanctioned permits for their actions.

Training animals to ravage each other is the work of a dark, deplorable spirit — and it deserves punishment. But owning and exchanging those images still might be historical or educational, and it probably constitutes something akin to art.