Animal Cruelty and the Supreme Court

By now, you have probably heard about the Supreme Court ruling striking down the law on which the case (and conviction) of a man who was selling videos that included dog fighting was based. Several of the dog lists to which I subscribe were immediately filled with messages of indignation. People were disgusted that the Supreme Court could rule in favor of dog fighting!

But of course that is a complete misunderstanding of just what is being ruled on here. The issue is actually one of free speech, the First Amendment. As I understand it, the videos were shot in a country in which dog fighting was at the time legal. The videos were not about dog fighting, per se, but about the Pit Bull and its heritage, or about hunting with dogs. The legislation on which the case was based did not specify "dog fighting" in any way, but was far more vague, with mentions of "animal cruelty" but without specifics of what that was.

If anyone remembers the debate about child pornography, before that law was brought into effect, and comments of "I know it when I see it," you might have some idea of the problems involved with vague definitions. I'm certainly against animal cruelty, but some of what I consider animal cruelty is actually broadcast of the National Geographic channel. . . and no legislators are crying for it to be taken off the air. In fact, while I would love to see it disappear from the airwaves, I would actually have to be AGAINST any legislation to accomplish that goal. Because it is subjective. And it is a matter of free speech.

Issues can get rather thorny when two strongly held beliefs run up against one another. Do I want to see videos including dog fighting available for sale? No. Do I want to ban some mushy, non-defined idea such as "animal cruelty"? Even more strongly no. Because if PETA got to decide what constitutes animal cruelty, my right to even own my dogs would disappear.

The Supreme Court justices indicated strongly that if the legislation is rewritten to be more focused and specific, they would have no problem with it. So there's really no big debate here. An unfortunate percentage of legislation is so broad as to have many unintended consequences, and that was the case here. Our lawmakers need to learn to understand the subtleties of a subject before they write laws about it. Then we'll all have more security and less debate about matters such as this.

More Updates on Dogs and the Law

Two items of interest crossed my desk this morning. The first, thanks to a friend in Germany, concerns Switzerland and a vote they are about to take.
I didn't know, so I expect many of you may not either, that Switzerland is a true direct democracy. Citizens can collect signatures to bring an initiative to a full vote of the populace. Some Swiss have done just that, collecting over 100,000 signatures to bring a vote on requiring domestic animals to be represented by a lawyer in court. In cases of alleged abuse, a Swixx canton (similar to our states) would have to appoint a special attorney to represent the animal's side of the matter. Supporters say the current laws aren't strong enough to secure convictions against those suspected of animal cruelty, so having a court-appoint attorney to act on behalf of the animals is necessary.
The second is closer to home. In California, the majority leader of the state Senate, Dean Florez, has proposed that animal abusers be placed on the same level as sex offenders by listing them in an online registry, complete with home addresses and places of employment. A person would have to be convicted of a felony involving animal cruelty to make the list, but would then have to register with police and provide the state informaiton as well as a current photograph.
The Animal Legal Defense Fund, promoting the registry, says that there is a proven link between those who abuse animals and those who perform other forms of violence. An out-of-state attorney notes that such a list could be valuable in tracking people who run puppy mills, animal fighting rings, or who are just hoarders, as such people often just pick up and move if authorities get too close.
Mr. Florez recently helped establish an Animal Protection Caucus, and thinks he has the votes to more the measure forward. He comes from the farming-friendly Central Valley, and thinks that will also help his cause.