Robert J Stevens should be Protected.

The case started in 1999, when the congress made it a crime to sell “crush video”, and other pictures of unlawful cruelty to animals. There is one guy name Robert J. Stevens, who was in jailed for 37 months. He was charged because he sold illegal dog’s fighting video [1].

Based on my opinion, Stevens should not be punished. He should be protected because he was not the one who produced or made the video. The video was made in Japan, where animal fighting is legal. He just sold the video in the United States but he did not involve in making the video. Based on Stevens’ lawyers, “It is hard to imagine, how the punishment of depictions of conduct which occurred a long time ago, at a time when it was not even illegal, or in a country where it is not illegal, can prevent animal cruelty here and now, at a time and a place where it is illegal” [2]. I am agree with his lawyer because the video was made in Japan, where animal cruelty is protected, and when he sold it here, it became his and consumers’ freedom of speech.

Under Kingsley Intl Pictures v. Regents, 1959, Stevens will be protected. Kingsley v. Regents contains, “non-confirming viewpoints and dissents concerning sexual morality are protected as political speech so long as communicated in a non-obscene way”. The video might offend people but it is not harm anyone, and Stevens did not purposely sold to offend other people. The U.S. court applies strict scrutiny for Stevens’ case, and I agree with it. Strict scrutiny arises when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed, or when the government action involves the use of a “suspect classification” such as race or national origin that may render it void under the Equal Protection Clause. “Government must prove it has a compelling reason to regulate or punish the speech and restriction not overly broad or vague and advances government interest.” I think Stevens did not cause an immediate action, which will not harm anyone, and the definition of animal cruelty is still too broad.

To support my statement, I will use Edwin Baker’s Liberty theory of freedom of speech. Based on Baker, freedom of speech is not primarily a means to a marketplace of ideas, or truth, or democracy. Instead, he argues the view that liberty of speech is integral to individual self-fulfillment and so needs to be treated as a universal right of human dignity. He will also protect a sexual/obscene material (Tedford and Herbeck 441). Therefore, it is Stevens’ freedom to sell the video, and based on my opinion, people will watch the video at their house and their own time. We all know from Stanley v. Georgia 1969 that we all have “the right to privacy in one’s own home insures the right for adults to read or observe what they please” and “A state has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch”. With Baker’s theory and Stanley v. Georgia, Stevens should be protected.

On the other hand, I do not protect animal cruelty. I think Supreme Court need to specify the law, and state that whether it is a picture, movie, or other mediums that contain animal cruelty should be illegal. For me, animal is a special living thing that should be protected and we needed to put our attention seriously for animals’ problem. Even though, we cannot equalize between animal with human, they need our protection, and animal fighting should be banned.

Furthermore, I will not protect animal cruelty; even though, the movie/picture shows an artistic or creative side (SLAPs), it should be banned. Zechariah Chafee is suggested that speech could be divided into “worthwhile” and “worthless” categories. “Worthwhile” speech about government matters receiving almost absolute protection and “Worthless” speech about private concerns receiving far less protection (Tedford and Herbeck 435). I think Chafee will not protect animal cruelty. He sees animal cruelty as a “worthless” speech and will not be protected. It is like Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, where Chafee will not protect “fighting words”; therefore, animal cruelty will not be protected [3].

Overall, I will protect Stevens because he did not do anything wrong. Sold a video is his freedom, and under Kingsley Intl Pictures v. Regents, he will be protected. Even though, I protect Stevens, I will not protect animal cruelty, the same way as child pornography. Animal should be protected, and animal fighting should be banned in the United States.