In the case of USA v. Stevens I argue that the law should be overturned and Sullivan should not face any criminal charges. I argue that the charges brought against Mr. Stevens are violating his rights of free speech that are guaranteed and protected by the first amendment. I will be using the philosophical works of Emerson as well as the harm theory to support my argument. As a case precedent I believe the precedent passed down from the case of New York v Ferber should be considered. I will also use the USA v Vick, and the respect theory to strengthen my argument of why the law should be overturned in the New York v. Stevens case.
Let us first start with some background of the case. Mr. Stevens was convicted of creating and selling movies that portrayed animal cruelty. One of the tapes that was created was showing a dog and his training, which included attacking a wild hog, while the other two tapes where tapes showing pit bulls engaging in dog fighting.[1] Stevens was not even depicted in these films. He was simply selling them, not partaking in the acts that some view as animal cruelty or inhumane.
Right away it becomes clear to me that Mr. Stevens should have his videotapes be protected. Even though the actions that are depicted in the video can be seen by some as animal cruelty, it is not the same as him holding dogfights in his back yard. Unlike other cases where these fights where actually held by the individual, USA v Vick, Mr. Stevens was simply selling the tapes. In the USA v Vick case, Michael Vick was convicted of running a dog-fighting ring out of his home in Georgia. Vick admitted to knowing that the fights were taking place, and he also admitted to killing some of the dogs himself.[2] In this case Mr. Vick was charged and convicted, unlike the Stevens case Mr. Vick took part in these acts. If we use the Vick case as a precedent and decide to overturn the law banning the sell of the material due to the fact that Mr. Stevens did not commit the acts portrayed in his videos, I believe that the court would be taking a step in the right direction.
Another case that we can look at to understand why this law should not be upheld is the New York v Ferber case. I do not want to look at this case as a whole, but specifically target one thing that came from this case. During the Stevens case, the prosecutors tried to make an analogy to the Ferber case. This analogy was that the animals in these films are being harmed and suffer shame just like the children from the Ferber case. Ten of the courts judges struck down this analogy right away, saying that the animals do not feel the shame that children would, and there fore this analogy holds no value. I argue that this is an important distinction to point out because it shows that the court does not place the life of an animal on the same level as a child. I agree with this, the animals being depicted in the films sold by Mr. Stevens where not shamed in any way and will not feel hurt as a result from these films in the future.
If we step back and look at this case from a harm theory or respect theory point of view, it becomes apparent that Mr. Stevens has done nothing wrong and does not deserve the charges he faces. According to the harm theory speech should be protected as long as the speech does not have the potential to lead to harm. It is clear that these films sold by Mr. Stevens have no potential to lead to harm to any individual person or groups of people. This theory supports my argument that the law should not be upheld. In agreement with this theory is the respect theory. The respect theory argues that speech should be protected as long as it does not degrade a group of people. In no way do the films sold by Mr. Stevens degrade a group of people. Either of these theories can be used to argue that the law should be overturned.
As I mentioned earlier in this post I believe that the approach taken by Emerson and his philosophical views would argue that this law should be overturned. Emerson introduced an expression action theory that he concluded should be used to decide weather speech should be protected or not.[3] Emerson states that any expression should be protected, but when that expression turns to instruction or action it should not be protected. This philosophical work should be used when looking at the New York v Stevens case because it would argue that the films are an expression and not action or instruction. The films are not a direct action being carried out by Mr. Stevens and are not explicit instructions directing anyone to carry out the same acts being depicted in the videos.
In conclusion I do not feel that Mr. Stevens should be charged. Unlike the USA v. Vick case that I mentioned, Mr. Stevens had no actual involvement in what some might consider to be animal cruelty that was depicted in the films he was selling. As I have noted, according to both the harm and respect theories Mr. Stevens has done nothing wrong as these films do not harm or degrade any people or groups. Emerson’s expression action theory supports my argument and would protect these films and Mr. Steven right to sell them. Once again I will state that I argue that the law should be overturned in the USA v. Stevens case.
No comments:
Post a Comment