To the Editor:
Re “Justices
Reject Ban on Depicting Animal Cruelty” (front page, April 21):
I
am sickened by the Supreme Court’s 8-to-1 ruling overturning a federal
law banning depictions of animal cruelty. More animals will suffer, as
makers of such horrific videos rush to create a new supply for their
customers.
If child pornography is banned, material depicting
cruelty to animals should be, too. Animals, like children, are helpless
and should be protected. Showing the torment and killing of animals only
serves as a guidebook for those with criminal or pathological
tendencies.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., in my opinion, made the
only sane ruling on this issue.
Melanie Coronetz
New York, April 21, 2010
To the Editor:
As an animal
rights advocate, I am generally inclined to support measures that would
benefit those species that are without a voice. On the other hand, if
animal cruelty videos were banned, it seems that the door would have to
shut on virtually any videos for educational or journalistic purposes
that depict real violence, hence the court’s pronouncement that the law
isn’t narrowly tailored.
Even if the videos perpetuate the cruel
acts, we have to consider the other repercussions of the ban, like the
constraints on the human right of free
speech.
If Congress is serious about animal rights, it would enact
laws that prohibit factory farming, which is responsible for the
suffering of millions of animals each year. This would be far more
effective than banning cruelty videos—an action that is tantamount to
removing a pebble from a mountain.
Matthew A. Cucchiaro
Boulder, Colo., April 21, 2010
Note from KBJ: Is the first letter writer implying that the Supreme Court should do whatever it takes to prevent suffering to animals? Where did she get the idea that it's the job of the Supreme Court to promote certain goals, and why, if it is the Court's job to promote certain goals, does she think that the goal to be promoted in this case is the prevention of animal suffering rather than, say, the promotion of individual liberty? Oh, wait; she got it from progressive law professors, who are progressives first and law professors second. By the way, is she implying that the majority ruling is insane? What is the test of sanity? Agreeing with Melanie Coronetz? How convenient!
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 