Under a 1999 federal law banning graphic animal cruelty videos, a Virginian named Robert Stevens got 3 years in jail for selling films of pit bull fights. A federal appeals court overturned his conviction, and now the Supreme Court will decide if people’s freedom of speech is violated if they can’t film animals being tortured and killed.
As if anybody needs to be making Stevens’ bloody garbage or “crush videos,” so perverts can watch women stomp mice and kittens to death with their bare feet or in high-heeled shoes.
Dissecting the law, which the Obama administration and 26 states support, the justices played verbal games, implying it could ban educational films about hunting or nature.
The justices miss the point. To make these films, film-makers need “actors” — animals who can’t protest being thrust into dangerous or deadly situations. They can only use their claws and teeth to futilely fight for their lives while cameras roll.
Because animals can’t “speak,” we don’t deserve the right to live?
If we were talking about filming naked women in stilettos slicing and dicing a few babies or Supreme Court justices for fun, I think the debate would have been over quickly.
Justice Antonin Scalia said, “It’s not up to the government to decide what are people’s worst instincts.
Scalia, you soulless douche bag, by even considering throwing out this protection for animals, the Supreme Court displays its own worst instincts.
Going back to Robert Stevens, his argument is that his pit bull flicks were fine because they weren’t “obscene, inflammatory, or untruthful.”
Wrong, Stevens. They were obscene. And you are obscene, promoting the “sport” of dogs tearing each other apart. You should have gotten life in jail — with a hungry pit bull as your cellmate.