Law & animal rights
Today, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law that criminalized “dogfighting videos or other depictions of animal cruelty.” The Court declared the law overly broad but said that it was possible that a narrower law could be constitutional. An especially noteworthy section of Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion was the rejection of the idea that animal cruelty should be treated like child pornography and be exempted from First Amendment protection.
Child pornography, [Robert] said, is “a special case” because the market for it is “intrinsically related to the underlying abuse.”
As societal values change judges often begin extending constitutional protections to new groups. For instance, after the feminist movement began to take hold in America, the Court began to interpret the “Equal Protection Clause” as protecting womens rights to an extent beyond what the Framers of the 14th Amendment would have envisioned. Considering that changing attitudes about African Americans, women, and homosexuals have caused major shifts in Supreme Court jurisprudence it’s worth considering whether an animal rights movement might have similar effect.
While today the Court drew a sharp distinction between depictions of child pornography and depictions of mistreatment of animals perhaps 50 years from now the disparities won’t be so clear. The United States has some of the strongest free speech protections in the world, and has been reluctant to carve out exceptions; but it will be interesting to note whether or not changing attitudes about the treatment of animals will cause future generations to revisit whether depictions of animal cruelty are deserving of First Amendment protection.
-Luke
Related posts:
- More on Michael Vick
- Healthcare, Rights, and Human Rights
- Fish on the First, Continued
- Souter to retire
- The people’s court
ShareComments
Leave a Reply
