Robert Stevens filmed dogfights and imported Japanese dog
fight videos. He sold his videos through his business, “Dogs of Velvet and
Steel”. Video titles include, “Catch
Dogs and Country Living” and “Pick a Winna”, in which viewers are asked to
determine which dog they think will win a fight. He is a pit bull man and I would love to have a copy of his
book, “Dogs of Velvet and Steel: Pit Bulldogs: A Manual For Owners” for review
and as an addition to my library. The book is reportedly a wealth
of information contributed by various dog men on how to select, condition and
medically treat injured fighting dogs. It is currently priced on Amazon.com from about $300, used to over
$500 dollars, collectible. I won't be buying a copy at those prices.
In 2003, Mr. Stevens was sentenced to 37 months in prison
for three counts of trafficking in animal cruelty under a 1999 law designed
primarily to, pardon the pun, squash a plethora of sexual fetish videos that
depicted women crushing small, live animals with their feet. That law, which dealt with trafficking
of images, was struck down in 2008 by a federal appeals court on grounds that
it violated the First Amendment. A few days ago, the Supreme Court agreed. Dog
lovers everywhere are outraged at the apparent injustice. “What will they allow next? Child
pornography?” some asked.
Let me say right up front that I am against animal cruelty
and organized dog fighting. I
think that dog fighting and recording or selling dogfight videos is disgusting
and odious. Creepy and bizarre
sexual fetishes repulse me, too.
But, I’m a HUGE fan of the First Amendment. The court decided that images of animal cruelty didn't fall
into the areas where the government can restrict free speech: obscenity,
defamation, fraud, incitement, and speech integral to criminal conduct.
What’s interesting and unique about the
First Amendment, and the broad definitions that might restrict freedom of
speech, it is that it can change as our society changes - for better or worse. The bad guy in this is not the Supreme
Court (although I don't deny it can make less than stellar decisions in
hindsight). The decisions of the courts are a reflection of the culture and
times.
Justice William O. Douglas said that the First Amendment was
designed to invite dispute, to induce a condition of unrest, to create
dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, and even to stir people to
anger. Animal lovers who are
dissatisfied with how our government defines animal cruelty or the things that
restrict First Amendment rights, might recognize the Supreme Court’s decision
as a "call to arms" to work harder to influence social, cultural and legal change.
