Today the Supreme Court overturned a law that banned videos showing cruelty to animals, citing freedom of speech. I'm sorry, but abusing defenseless creatures is NOT freedom of speech and it is NEVER okay.
Animal abuse is a subject that hits very close to home for me. My cat Chloe was abused before we adopted her, and the effects of that cruelty are still with her some 7 years later. Aside from the physical effects of the trauma - part of her tail is missing and she has neurological damage - she still shrinks when humans try to touch her, even the family that she has lived with for almost a decade.
My mom's friend adopted a kitten who was found with string tied around her tail. She was discovered by a lake where teenagers were whipping cats around by their tails and then tossing them into the water to drown.
Animal abuse is violence towards a living, feeling creature. There's no legalese that could make that untrue.
If this kind of violence was directed at women or children, it would never be tolerated. So, why animals? According to the law, animals are still "property", something with which anyone who has ever lived with a pet would disagree. When my cats are sick or in pain, the look in their eyes is as sad and hurt as a child with the same affliction. They are living beings, they feel pain and they can sense fear. If my dad accidentally stomps his feet too loudly in Chloe's direction she goes darting down the hallway to hide. The abuse that she endured eight years ago still lives in her mind and informs her daily life. She has a memory, and she has feelings.
I'm very attached to my cats, and anyone who knows me would agree that, to me, they are like my children. Sometimes I look at Chloe and have to fight back tears when I think that someone abused her. Me and my brother have been volunteering at a local no-kill shelter for about nine years now, and there are countless stories like Chloe's - or worse. It absolutely breaks your heart.
I know that the Supreme Court is supposed to rule by law and not by feelings; that empathy and sympathy are not supposed to factor into their decisions. But there are some times when even the most strict constructionists need to just take a stand and say "this is wrong." Abusing animals is wrong. In this case, I really don't care about precedent or whether or not something so vile and cruel could fall into the category of free speech. Overturning this ban is a wink to the monster who tortured Chloe, the teenagers who tossed the kittens into the lake, and all of the sickos who are now preparing to shoot more crushing videos.
Perhaps if the eight justices who voted to overturn the ban spent some time with shelter animals, listened to stories of cruelty and looked into the eyes of abused animals they might understand that animal abuse is never okay.
I don't usually say this, but if you disagree with me please don't leave a comment. This decision really upset me today and I honestly don't feel like getting harassed or arguing with anyone about it.
More buttons 
9 comments:
I totally agree. Animal abuse is terrible. I feel the same way about my Coco that you feel about Chloe. Animals definitely have memories and can sense fear. Good on you for volunteering.
That is awful! How could causing pain to something living possibly be considered free speech??
I hate people who are mean to animals. HATE with a furry passion. I had to just glance through your post rather than fully read because I was afraid you might go into details and my heart can't handle animal abuse stories.
xx
I want to know what was going through the head of the first person who caused pain to another living creature and said, "they don't feel pain like us." Absence of empathy is the sure sign of a psychopath. Of course we can never truly know what it is like to be a cat, or a cow, or a chimpanzee, but I'd prefer we assume they feel something like we do, and behave accordingly.
This makes me feel sick. I love my cats and am very protective of them. The thought of one of them being intentionally hurt by a human being is disgusting.
Animals may or may not be "intellectually superior," but they are still God's creatures. We should treasure and care for them. I can't understand why someone would hurt them for "fun."
I hope I never understand why someone would be okay with such cruelty.
And videos depicting cruelty to living beings - of any kind - can't possibly be connected to "freedom of speech" unless the creature is being verbally abused.
ITA, Kate. Just as someone can't yell FIRE in a crowded theatre, someone shouldn't be able to torture an animal and video it for others to see. Animal (or people) abuse in any form cannot be categorized as free speech.
Take care!
SEETHING. that is just so, so awful. my dog was like a fourth member of our family, for me there's hardly a greater evil on earth than animal abuse. animals are absolutely not just property, they aren't a child's toy, i absolutely agree with you. they feel pain, they remember things, this is not okay at all. at all.
Personally, I don't see how the Court can justify overturning the law. As I see it, videos of abusing animals is no more protected under freedom of speech than obscenity--even less so actually. Animals are not property--under English common law, cats never have been (example--if your cat destroys your neighbour's house, your neighbour can't sue you because, well, a cat isn't your property...)--and they certainly not "things" to do with as we will. I just hope when the Supreme Court gets a chance to revisit this decision, they change their mind.
I echo all the above, but especially Mercurie: this seems not just morally outrageous but logically and legally pretty dodgy too.
I can't see any risk of misapplication or anything like that that would justify caution either. Who could such a law possibly inconvenience other than those it was intended to inconvenience?
This new ruling is just a green light to every piece of crap out there to do whatever they hell they want.
How utterly depressing.
Post a Comment