Chicken about to be slaughtered in a Kaparot ceremony in Jerusalem.
Uriel Sinai / Getty Images.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects our freedom of speech and our freedom of religion. But what if that speech is a video of animal cruelty? And what if the religious practice is cruel to animals?
The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments next month on whether videos of animal cruelty should be protected under the First Amendment. A federal law prohibits depictions of animal cruelty, but when Robert Stevens was prosecuted for selling videos of dogfights, Stevens challenged the law as an infringement of his First Amendment rights. 18 U.S.C. §48 also prohibits "crush" videos, which show small animals being crushed by women's feet, with or without shoes; and for which fetishists will pay money. Prosecuting someone for selling, possessing or creating such videos is separate from prosecuting someone for the animal cruelty acts being depicted.
In a First Amendment case involving religion and animal protection, a local ordinance attempting to prohibit the Santerian practice of animal sacrifice in Hialeah, Florida was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993 because the ordinance targeted a religious practice, and was neither neutral or generally applicable.
In another controversy involving religion, Rina Deych discusses her opposition to using chickens in the Jewish ritual, Kaparot:
A sign saying "Kaporot" adorns the area along with the stench of fear and death. People line up to participate in one of the most barbaric acts I have ever personally witnessed. A live chicken is swung around each person's head 3 times then has it's neck sliced open to bleed to death. This procedure is repeated for each family who pays the fee. The blood, I'm told, represents our sins flowing out so that we may begin the new year with a clean slate.
In an animal-friendly version of the ritual, a handkercheif full of money is swung over people's heads, and the money is then donated to charity. Kaparot can be performed any time between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur.
Although I'm not aware of any claims that Kaparot violates animal cruelty laws, animal protection groups are asking Jewish leaders to voluntarily end the practice.
One does not have to be vegan to find the practice of animal sacrifice to be objectionable. But while some omnivores may oppose animal sacrifice, law professor and animal advocate Gary Francione asks:
But for those people who are not vegans and who object to Santería sacrifices or dogfighting, my question is “why”? . . . So what are the Santería practitioners doing that is any different from any other non-vegan in Euless, Texas, or anywhere else?
The answer is, of course, nothing.
From a legal standpoint, I have to agree with Francione's assessment of the situation. If the animal is going to be eaten, our government cannot prohibit animal slaughter for religious purposes, while allowing animal slaughter for non-religious purposes. And it looks like our slaughterhouses are not going to shut down any time soon.
But we can certainly prohibit "crush" videos and other videos depicting animal cruelty. The First Amendment offers broad protections of all kinds of offensive speech, but there are exceptions. For example, we draw the line at child pornography because, in the words of the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, "Child pornography harms and debases the most defenseless of our citizens." I would argue that the animals killed in crush videos are as defenseless, if not more defenseless, than children, and deserve the same protections.
Thanks to United Poultry Concerns for the link to Deych's article.
Add to Technorati Favorites
Share on Facebook
Follow Me on Twitter
Comments
I hate it when people like Gary F. claim that ritual slaughter or crush videos are “no different” than slaughtering and eating meat and that we shouldn’t draw a distinction or take action on one but not the other.
The truth is that if we can get public opinion against crush vidoes to ban some cruelty against animals it creates a “wedge” which allows slow systemic change to occur.
Perhaps thats welfarist, but I would rather save some animals than none and pat myself on the back for being logically pure. That makes me pragmatic not self-congratulatory.
Good point, Rachel!
I haven’t asked Francione about it, but I would argue that the analogy should be used to show people that eating animals is cruel and unnecessary. Not to argue that dogfighting or crush videos are morally acceptable.
Francione does say, ” I am not saying that animal sacrifices are morally justifiable or excusable; I am just saying that the justification used by Santería practitioners is, on its face, stronger than what non-vegans have to say when asked to justify their consumption of animal products.”
I’ve seen people use Francione’s argument to mean that we should stop criticizing Michael Vick, but I don’t think that’s what it means at all.