• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Katie JordanENG 111Mr. Weinkam22 October 2009
Animal Cruelty v. Free Speech:A Rhetorical AnalysisShould videos displaying acts of animal cruelty be protected under the Freedom of Speech? This question will be heavily argued in the Supreme Court (U.S. v. Stevens) asthe United States awaits the possibility of another exception to the First Amendment.Existing exceptions include obscenity and child pornography, but should animal crueltymedia be added to the list? At what point are there too many exceptions to the FirstAmendment limiting America’s right to free speech? Two articles analyze this U.S. v.Stevens case, arguing whether Robert Stevens, dogfighting film and video producer, should be indeed found guilty of violating the law through these animal cruelty videos (he did notdirectly participate in dog attacks, he only filmed them) or if he should be protected by theFirst Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. The articles also debate whether a federal lawfor the purpose of prosecuting those who are involved with animal cruelty videos shouldremain intact. Both articles are well argued, using mostly logos and pathos to support their  positions for or against animal cruelty videos as an act of free speech.In an article from www.opposingviews.com entitled “Supreme Court to Decide if Dogfighting Videos are Free Speech,” the Humane Society of the United States usessufficient logos throughout the article to support their main claim to defend the rights of animals. They believe promoting cruelty to animals in horrific, repulsive videos shouldnot be protected under the U.S. Constitution. The Humane Society is specificallyaddressing the case of Robert Stevens, but also addressing animal cruelty videos in
1
 
general. There is a current law (the federal Depiction of Animal Cruelty Law) that was passed in 1999 by congress in hopes to stop the creation, sales, and possession of mediacontaining animal cruelty. Those found guilty of any violations of the law can be finedand/or imprisoned for no more than 5 years. Animal activists argue, “The federalDepiction of Animal Cruelty Law is not only constitutional but urgently needed to stop theabuse of animals.” They believe that by keeping this law instilled, animal abuse willlessen because of the consequences against those who create, sell, and possess videoscontaining it. They argue that this law does not go against the First Amendment. Clear logic is used to explain why this law is certainly necessary to protect animals fromwrongful abuse when they go on to say, “The law caused the crush video industry torecede dramatically and no prosecutions of purveyors of crush videos have been needed inthe decade that the law was in force.” Crush videos are a large industry of animal abusefilled media where women in spiked heal skewer small animals and harm them in other despicable manners, but they humane society explains that’s this law is crucial in reducingthe number of crush videos made, as evident by the lack of prosecutions in the pastdecade. Using more logos, the Humane Society goes on to say, “The law has never beenused against documentary filmmakers, journalists or others engaging in legitimate speech –– the only three prosecutions under the law have involved dogfighters who sold videos ininterstate commerce for profit.” This explains that the law has only been needed, and infact used, when dogfighters make illegal, abusive videos at the expense of animals. Thisfact addresses the specific case of Robert Stevens. Stevens produces videos of dogfights,and in the opinion of the Humane Society, he is therefore enabling this cruel industry.This explains why animal activists are fighting to keep this law intact. The Humane
2
 
Society logically argues why the law should be in place by describing past incidences andusing valid explanations to back up their main point that Stevens should not be protectedunder the First Amendment.Similar to the Humane Society’s article, the New York Times article “AnimalCruelty and Free Speech” uses significant logos to argue the other side of this case,claiming that the federal Depiction of Animal Cruelty Law is unconstitutional. The articleinsists Stevens should be protected under the First Amendment. The author explains, “Thefederal appeals court reversed his conviction, ruling that the federal law under which hewas prosecuted is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court should uphold that well-reasoneddecision.” This article addresses the fact that the federal appeals court reversed Stevens’original conviction, and they believe with good reason. The author argues that another reversal by the Supreme Court would disagree with the U.S. Constitution, just as thefederal appeals court declared. Also, the author does not try to illogically argue thatcruelty to animals is a good thing; instead, he addresses that animal cruelty is in facthorrible and despicable. The fact that this article addresses the opposing side’s view in thismanner only makes the argument stronger. The author argues that since Stevens onlycaptured these acts on film and did not partake in them, he should be protected under theFirst Amendment. He says, “Some of the material in this case is truly stomach-churning.There are people who enjoy watching animals being tortured and killed.” He understandsthe horror behind torturing animals, but explains that isn’t pertinent in this case becauseStevens never committed any animal abuse himself. He addresses the other side,strengthening the main claim, yet logically explains why his side is right. He uses logos togo on to say, “This [animal abuse] is not the only deeply offensive speech protected by the
3
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...