Today the Supreme Court reversed a ban on animal cruelty videos and photos from being sold in our country. These videos include animals being illegally killed or tortured. As a big animal advocate and somebody that tries to understand all areas of the law I’m sure some people would like to hear how I feel about this.

It’s early in the morning and I’m already seeing people taking this ruling as something it’s not. This does not make torturing or killing animals LEGAL. It makes the possession and selling of these videos and photos LEGAL and protected under FREEDOM OF SPEECH.  As I strongly believe it should be. For many years I have been a loud advocate for animals, but I think people need to understand what this ruling really means rather than jumping to conclusions from a cleverly written headline.

To many people, especially animal lovers, this court ruling may seem like a step backwards in our society, but I feel the opposite to be honest. This ruling legalizes the sale and possession of these types of videos and photos, not the criminal acts themselves. What does this mean exactly? Well think about it. The torture and killing of animals happens through out the world every day.    Every day in this country. By banning the videos and photos of these horrible actions you keep a lot of this activity out of the public eye. Now in America we’ve seen this type of animal abuse in the spotlight over recent years with high profile cases such as Michael Vick. But the truth is, as somebody that works with many dogs, especially rescues, animal abuse happens every day and goes unnoticed by many. I believe it’s important to not only think about this ruling with your personal opinions against animal cruelty, but look at the what this actually means for the rights of animals from now on.

Many organizations have wanted to use these images to show how brutal and vial some people can be to defenseless animals. PETA, The Humane Society, and many rescues NEED to show images like this to the public to show the sad and horrific truth that this happens every day in every city by non-famous people. The less the public sees animals being tortured the more the public may think it’s not a serious problem. This ruling, as controversial as it is, is already bringing more awareness to the problem of animal cruelty.

Many of us have stood at our computers watching footage of animals being tortured and killed for different reasons and have been disgusted by them. Remember how those images make you feel. Some even swear off eating meat because of them. Some donate money to help stop these abuses. They have a strong impact on society. A very strong impact. To ban them from this country would only keep them in the underground. It wouldn’t stop the abuse, only mask it and only keep it out of the public eye. Now that this ruling has come I believe that pro animal groups need to use this to their advantage to educate the people and to lobby for more strict laws against the actual act of harming animals.

Now from a legal standpoint. I got this reply on Twitter a few minutes ago:

“Replace the animals with humans..then what? Is it still free speech?”

Yes, it is free speech.

Right now you can rent or buy videos of people being killed and tortured. Videos like Faces of Death, Traces of Death, uncensored news footage like Banned From TV. Even news services pay freelance photographers and camera men money for footage of bombs blowing up, police shootings, and any images that can raise the blood pressure of the viewers. These videos are protected by the United State’s 1st Amendment. Right now you can buy or rent many of these videos. . . or not, if you decide not to.

“You don’t think free speech is being taken too far here?”

The point of free speech is just that, FREE SPEECH. We can’t, or shouldn’t draw a line and say our speech should be free and not yours. Now remember, FREEDOM OF SPEECH doesn’t just mean you can say whatever you want. It’s the idea that your should have the right to speak your thoughts as long as you’re not putting anyone at harm. Hate speech is not FREEDOM OF SPEECH. And I’m talking from a legal stand point of what the Supreme Court has decided. We’re not attorneys to say the Courts have been wrong or right, just what is law.

It’s important to protect our freedoms in this country even if there is something we feel is not moral or ethical to us. We must not let our personal morals effect the rights of others. Look at what has happened in the past with books, music, and art. I believe that in this country you should have the right to view something if you feel you want to, or turn away if you feel. For over 9 years I made a living being a comedian and I feel blessed with the freedom to say what is on my mind. I’ve also been active in standing up for what I believe in.

In order for our Bill Of Rights to be effective you can’t filter out what hurts your feelings.

Lets use this ruling in our favor. This Supreme Court has found that these videos and photos should be protected by our constitution and for many of us that want to help protect our animals from these assholes that torture and kill them in inhumane ways, now we can use their own actions against them by showing that it is still a major problem in the United States.

We can all sit back and bitch that the government sucks, but the truth is you’re not helping change the world by doing that.  I’d like to hear what you think. Leave a comment below or email me at charlie@charliemoreno.net

The news story below:

The Supreme Court struck down on free-speech grounds Tuesday a federal law that makes it a crime to sell videos or photos of animals being illegally killed or tortured.

In a 8-1 ruling, the justices overturned the conviction of a Virginia man who sold dog-fighting videos.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., speaking for the court, said the First Amendment does not allow the government to criminalize whole categories of speech and expression that are deemed undesirable.

Roberts also said the law was too broad and could allow prosecutions for selling photos of out-of-season hunting, for example.

Only Justice Samuel Alito dissented.

Congress passed the law a decade ago to halt the practice of selling videos that depicted tiny animals being crushed to death. It had been rarely used, however, and came under challenge when prosecutors used it against the dog-fighting industry.

This is the high court’s second controversial free-speech ruling this year. In January, the court struck down the laws that prohibited corporations from spending money on election races.