TJP
THE JETHRO PROJECT
O R G A N I Z I N G F O R E F F I C I E N T O U T P U T
- Supreme Court Debate over Merchandizing Animal Cruelty
- By Byron A. Ellis – October 07, 2009
The Supreme Court debate over the torture and merchandizing cruelty of animals is interesting. On the surface, it appears to place preeminence of animal torture and cruelty over human torture and cruelty. However, if the court upholds the 1999 law it will open the door for legal challenges to torture and merchandizing of human cruelty.
The case before the Court stems from the conviction of Robert Stevens, a Pittsville, Virginia, man who sold videos through his "Dogs of Velvet and Steel" business. The videos were a compilation of footages depicting animal fights.
In 2004, Mr. Stevens was charged with violating interstate commerce laws by selling depictions of animal cruelty. He was later convicted and sentenced to 37 months in prison.
He immediately appealed, arguing that his sentence was more severe than that of professional football player Michael Vick, who ran an illegal dog-fighting ring. A federal appeals court threw out his conviction.
The government in appealing the case to the Supreme Court argued that a compelling interest exists to prevent people from profiting from dog attacks and similar depictions.
A similar argument could be made against profiting from the compilation of video footage depicting war carnage, as well as arguing that military attacks and fighting in military battles is torture and cruelty to humans.
Thus, a win for the government in U.S. vs. Stevens may prove to be a bonanza for peace activists and trial attorneys and a headache for the government.
Post Comment
Lore
That's the best answer of all time! JMHO