Laws and Languages

Belgium: soon to join France as world leaders in religious and cultural intolerance

Paula — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 22:29:15 +0000

It is no secret that some European countries have been passing xenophobic laws for the past few years; and, if anything, these laws have proven at least two things:

a) Many European legislators (and the people who support them) have forgotten the key role European countries played in the devastation of the countries currently “pouring in immigrants”; a devastation that has lead to the situations of poverty and warfare that are making people flee the third world and seek asylum in Europe.

b) Many European legislators have forgotten a little something called human rights.

What does any of this have to do with France and Belgium?

In April of this year, after a full year debate and preparation, France passed a prohibition on full-faced veils in public places. Yes, after a year of criticizing the Muslim faith for forcing women to dress a certain way on the count of religious precepts (that France was not willing to understand or tolerate), France too decided to tell women how to dress -because apparently, two can play at that game. The dress code is simple: Muslim women in France can only dress in a way that is acceptable to Western eyes –regardless of the many human rights violations this dress code entails. In April of this year, Belgium began trying to pass a similar law, and it is very close to succeeding.

How does this violate human rights?

The rights of ethnic minorities

Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), states that ethnic minorities have the right “to enjoy their own culture [and] profess and practice their own religion […].”In addition, ethnic minorities have a right to self-determination as defined in article 1 of the ICCPR as well as General Assembly Resolution 1514 and 2625. This right involves the ability of all peoples to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Because burqas constitute a form of expression of some members of the Muslim faith, burqas are an element of Muslim cultural identity and, therefore, are essential to the cultural development of the Muslims who chose to wear them.

The right to freedom of religion

Additionally, both France and Belgium have ratified the ICCPR and, therefore, must ensure the right to freedom of religion as stipulated in article 18(1) of said Covenant, which not only protects the right to have and adopt a religion, but also to manifest, observe, practice, and teach that religion individually or in community, in public and in private. Consequently, under the aforementioned article, Muslim women have the right to openly manifest their religion through the use of burqas in public and, as per article 18(2) of that Covenant France and Belgium have the negative obligation to refrain from impairing the free exercise of this right through coercive measures such as bans.

Intolerance and Discrimination based on Religion or Belief

The burqa ban, coupled with public statements made by French and Belgian leaders, constitutes an act of “intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief” as defined in UN General Assembly Resolution 36/55 (Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief) according to which said act consists of “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis” (Article 2 of UN General Assembly Resolution 33/55).

Under article 20(2) of the ICCPR and article 3 of UN General Assembly Resolution 36/55, France and Belgium have the positive obligation to take “effective measures” (Article 3 of UN General Assembly Resolution 33/55) for prohibiting religious hatred and intolerance and must refrain from and prevent any incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence based on religion. In addition, in accordance with article 4(2) of the aforementioned resolution: “All States shall make all efforts to enact or rescind legislation where necessary to prohibit any such discrimination, and to take all appropriate measures to combat intolerance on the grounds of religion or other beliefs in this matter.”

Rules on clothing, such as prohibition of veils, violate several other rights

In the framework of the ICCPR, the Human Rights Committee has stated that norms on clothing “may involve a violation of a number of rights guaranteed by the Covenant, such as: article 26, on non-discrimination; article 7, if corporal punishment is imposed in order to enforce such a regulation; article 9, when failure to comply with the regulation is punished by arrest; article 12, if liberty of movement is subject to such a constraint; article 17, which guarantees all persons the right to privacy without arbitrary or unlawful interference; articles 18 and 19, when women are subjected to clothing requirements that are not in keeping with their religion or their right of self-expression; and, lastly, article 27, when the clothing requirements conflict with the culture to which the woman can lay a claim” (Human Rights Committee, General Comment #28, Equality of rights between men and women (article 3) CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.10, 29 March 2000, para. 13).

Closing Thoughts

I wouldn’t wear a burqa (or any other veil), but I would not deny anyone who’s cultural and religious identity is somehow linked to the right to wear it. Simply because in denying the right to express, I would be denying the right to be. Consistently with the message I have always tried to convey in this blog: expression, as a form of exteriorizing thought, is essential to social, cultural, and ultimately legal and democratic development. Just because we do not like what someone is saying to us through their words, actions, or even clothing, it does not give us the right to silence them or impose our ways upon them.

Opression Can Take Many Forms

Equity or Equality for Women in the Context of Human Rights?

Paula — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 13:48:32 +0000

Obvious though it may seem that equity and equality are not the same thing, they are often used interchangeably (or translated interchangeably) in many legal texts –including legislations aimed at implementing the principles set forth by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). In a paper titled Morgan Symposium on the Gender of Constitutional and Human Rights Law: Equity or Equality for Women? Understanding CEDAW’s Equality Principles, Alda Facio, Director of the Women, Gender and Justice Program at the United Nations Latin American Institute for Crime Prevention (ILANUD), and Martha I. Morgan, Robert S. Vance Professor Emerita of Law, University of Alabama, explore the differences between these two terms and how their misuse has a direct impact on the implementation of women’s rights norms.

The paper begins by exploring the debate that surrounded the use of these terms during the Fourth World Conference on Women that was held in Beijing in 1995, where, according to the authors, there was a “heated discussion” around the use of the words equality and equity in the conference’s draft, Platform for Action. In their research, the authors found that:

“Those who first proposed the use of ‘equity’ rather than ‘equality’ were fundamentalist Islamic forces and the Vatican, including its followers in Latin America. On the other hand, the Human Rights Caucus lobbied strongly for keeping the term ‘equality’ throughout the draft document, arguing that this is the term used not only in the CEDAW but in all other human rights treaties. Fortunately, the position of the Human Rights Caucus was accepted.”

But what is the difference between these two terms? According to the authors:

“[…]while equality is an empirical concept, equity represents an ethical imperative associated with the principles of social justice and human rights. […] Human rights treaties all enshrine the principle of ‘equality’ as a goal which States are legally obligated to achieve. Equity is not a concept associated with human rights, except maybe in the sense that both have to do with social justice. The principle of equality is directly associated with human rights as is the right to equality. In fact, without equality, human rights have no meaning.”

In this context, the authors conclude that:

“The legal principles of equality and non-discrimination are at the core of human rights treaties and declarations, and provide the foundation for the enjoyment of human rights. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women elaborates this principle as it applies in all aspects of women’s lives.”

It is clear that the term ‘equity’, which is conditioned by subjective criteria, cannot become a substitute for the fundamental legal principle of equality. Thus any language in the draft document for the five-year review of the Fourth World Conference on Women that would suggest replacement of the principle of equality by ‘equity’ would undermine this principle, and should be avoided.

In other words, the key to the issue revolves around equality as the foundation for applying principles of human rights and international treaties, which as per the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), are hierarchically higher than any local legislation that may apply the equity principle (instead of the equality principle) to issues of women’s rights.

Understanding and acknowledging this linguistic difference provides the necessary legal framework for applying the broad definition of equality found in articles 1 and 2 of the CEDAW, a definition that renders certain existing legislations throughout the world contrary to International Law.

International Law as the Language of Peace?

Paula — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 13:16:21 +0000

The justification of international public law in the “world community” is an issue that has led some of the brightest minds in jurisprudence to engage in many of the most fascinating ongoing legal debates. There are those who argue that international public law is pointless and proof of that is the systematic violations to international law by some of the most powerful nations in the world – including those in the UN Security Council. Others coherently reply to that objection saying that if violations to the law were enough to render a legal order pointless, then all legal systems are obsolete, for despite our civil and criminal codes and legislations people are killed and robbed every day. The questions around international law are many and the levels of complexity are so that a simple post in a law student’s little blog really won’t even begin to provide insight on the issue. But because lately circumstances in my academic life have led me to do a lot of reading on this matter, I came across what I perceive as an outstanding justification of international law in Malcolm N. Shaw’s book titled International Law:

Where countries are involved in a disagreement or a dispute, it is handy to have recourse to the rules of international law even if there are conflicting interpretations since at least there is a common frame of reference and one state will be aware of how the other state will develop its argument. They will both be talking a common language and this factor of communication is vital since misunderstandings occur so easily and often with tragic consequences. Where the antagonists dispute the understanding of a particular rule and adopt opposing stands as regards its implementation, they are at least on the same wavelength and communicate by means of the same phrases. That is something. It is not everything, for it is a mistake as well as inaccurate to claim for international law more than it can possibly deliver. It can constitute a mutually understandable vocabulary book and suggest possible solutions which follow from a study of its principles. What it cannot do is solve every problem no matter how dangerous or complex merely by being there. International law has not yet been developed, if it ever will, to that particular stage and one should not exaggerate its capabilities while pointing to its positive features.

As with other issues of international law, I doubt anyone could have put it in better words.

UAE: You call it a “right to chastise,” I call it a Human Rights Violation

Paula — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:48:55 +0000

Yesterday Human Rights Watch published the article UAE: Spousal Abuse Never a Right on their site criticizing a decision by the UAE Federal Supreme Court that upholds the “right” of a husband to “chastise” his wife and children with beatings and other forms of disciplinary measures such as punishments and coercion as long as no permanent marks result from the exercise of this right. As pointed out by HRW, this clearly violates the right of women and children in that country to liberty, security, and equality in the family – and potentially their right to life.

According to the court, “Although the husband has the right to discipline his wife in accordance with article 53 of the penal code, he must abide by conditions setting limits to this right, and if the husband abuses this right to discipline, he shall not be exempt from punishment.”

To anyone who has at least a minimal understanding of what “rights” actually are, this decision may result, at least, questionable. However, given that the decision revolved around an article in the criminal code, I can’t help but wonder about the phrasing of this code and the questions that may derive from it. Aside from the obvious question of how one could, under any circumstances, condone domestic violence there are the more subtle (and, to some extent, even absurd) questions of what exactly constitutes abusing a right to abuse. How do you draw the line between acceptable abuse and unacceptable abuse? And how do you even begin to justify the mere existence of acceptable forms of abuse?

Are Dying Languages Worth Saving?

Paula — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:00:17 +0000

I’m not the first person to attempt to answer this question. Like many of those who have tried before me, I am far from being an authority on language and culture. However, because this question seems to come into style every time the BBC or the New York Times publish reports on how the last speaker of a remote language has died, and because each time it does it sparks a very poor and biased debate, I felt compelled to speak out in defense of dying languages. Many of my counterparts have tried to convince us that dying languages are not an issue that should concern us. It’s just the way things are. Like everything else on Earth, languages complete a cycle and then fade away. I’m sure there’s a lot of truth to that, but I can’t help thinking there is a bigger picture we are failing to see when it comes to this question.

According to Ethnologue, an encyclopedic reference work cataloging all of the world’s 6,909 known living languages, “52% of languages are spoken by fewer than 10,000 people; 28% are spoken by fewer than 1,000; and 83% are spoken only in single countries, and so are particularly exposed to the policies of a single government.” This is where the question truly lies: language and culture and how that translates into language and law, and ultimately, language and government.

In their analysis of this data, the Foundation for Endangered Languages tells us the following:

“At the other end of the scale, 10 major languages, each spoken by over 109 million people, are the mother tongues of almost half of the world’s population.”

If we part from theories that analyze the intricate relationship between language and thought or language and reason, what these numbers are telling us is that when languages die, they take with them the potential for other forms of human reasoning.

The question of language and rational thought has been haunting some of the brightest minds in human history for as long as we can remember. It can be dated at least as far back as Greece and the ancient Greek concept of logos; a term that today is casually translated as “word” and which derives from legō, meaning “to count, tell, say, speak.” The Greeks distinguished between logos prophorikos (the uttered word) and the logos endiathetos (the word remaining within) but it was Heraclitus who provided true insight as to the ungraspable meaning of logos, which provided a link between rational discourse and the world’s rational structure. Heraclitus was a firm believer that man cannot and never will fully understand the logos that is always present in every word.

In Ars Rhetorica, Aristotle studied the concept of logos and defined it as argument from reason and included it as one of the three modes of persuasion (the other two modes being pathos, persuasion by means of emotional appeal and ethos, persuasion through convincing listeners of one’s moral character):

“For Aristotle, logos is something more refined than the capacity to make private feelings public: it enables the human being to perform as no other animal can; it makes it possible for him to perceive and make clear to others through reasoned discourse the difference between what is advantageous and what is harmful, between what is just and what is unjust, and between what is good and what is evil.” (Paul Anthony Rahe, Republics Ancient and Modern, Volume I: The Ancien Régime in Classical Greece, University of North Carolina Press, 1994.)

Therefore, logos is the way in which we express our ideas and thoughts about what is just and what is not. Logos, words, are the way in which we shape our rational world, the foundations of civil society. But some would argue that logos is much more than that. Phenominologists such as Merleau-Ponty might argue that words are a critical part of the role perception plays in understanding the world as well as engaging with the world. Others, like Paul Ricoeur, would take that a step further and sustain that whatever is intelligible is accessible to man in and through language and all deployments of language:

“there is no self-understanding that is not mediated by signs, symbols, and texts; in the final analysis self-understanding coincides with the interpretation given to these mediating terms.” (Ricoeur, Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation (The Terry Lectures Series), Northwestern University Press, 1991.)

So if language can shape the way in which we perceive and interact with the world, while framing the way in which we, as rational beings define and construct ourselves and our societies; and if over half of the world’s population speaks the same 10 languages, then wouldn’t it be safe to say that the fewer languages we have, the more limited our possible rational tools for building our future societies? When nearly half of the people on Earth share the same languages and thus the same mindsets, is there room for diversity and deliberation? If the answer is no, and considering that we view ourselves as a species that evolves through rational thought and communicates through rational discourse, would it be safe to conclude that although the death of a single language will not affect our daily life in any way whatsoever each time a language dies we lose the potential mindset that died with it? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then the death of a language is indeed tragic and something we should strive to prevent; and if language shapes society (and in turn, law), then perhaps it’s time to look to the law to find a solution to the problem of dying languages.

Oppression Can Take Many Forms…

Paula — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:00:48 +0000

Those of us who live in the Western world are no strangers to oppression; we have been slave drivers, inquisitors, and repressors. Our history is filled with examples of ethnic, religious and gender based denigration, dehumanization, and demonization that, when taken too far, took the lives of millions of people who’s skin was too red or too black for our taste or who’s refusal to accept our God we found inacceptable, or who were simply defending lands to which they were rightfully entitled… alas, we’re no angels, but that doesn’t seem to stop us from looking down on the Eastern world with arrogance and self- righteousness. It has never stopped us from telling people in less fortunate parts of our planet, “look at how far we’ve come, you should be more like us,” without even taking the time to fully understand why they are the way they are. We assume our way of life is better and we fight wars to impose it (while taking as much oil, diamonds, and uranium as we can fit in our pockets), but we don’t stop to ask ourselves basic questions: Is our way of life really better? Is our way of life sustainable? Should we do more listening and less preaching?

Although we are no strangers to oppression, for the most part, we have strived to evolve and adopt practices and principles that are more in tune with our “intellectual enlightenment.” We have written declarations, constitutions, bills of rights, treaties, books, and papers in favor of freedom and against oppression. Yet, despite all our words and practices, we have found new forms of oppression: war, systemic poverty, environmental exploitation… again, we in the Western world are no strangers to oppression.

It is with these self-critical eyes that I, as a Westerner, am wondering about the recent French ban on burqas, which has yet to be approved by France’s Constitutional Council. With Western eyes, it is safe to say that burqas constitute the ultimate symbol of oppression against women. As a Western woman, it hurts me to see women covered underneath garments I am incapable of understanding. I can’t imagine that any women could be happy to wear a burqa and have my doubts as to the legitimacy of the “choice” some Muslim women may have. As a Western women, I understand the rule of law in only one way: the voice of the people. I understand legitimacy in law to mean inclusive, deliberative, and democratic processes that reflect the voice of the people, hence my love for law and language, so it is in this light, that I would like to quote the voice of Muslim woman in Afganistan who’s words (and story) have pierced my heart:

They think it’s all about the burqa. I’m ready to wear two burqas if my government can provide security and a rule of law. That’s O.K. with me. If that’s the only freedom I have to give up, I’m ready.

Although the context of this quote is not related to the French law, it is related to a practice we would perceive as oppressive, but it still makes me wonder: is it possible that we Westerners might have a little more understanding to do before we can pass effective laws against certain Eastern practices?

When Lawyers are not allowed to Speak, Literally

Paula — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:27:44 +0000

When thinking of the right to due process, we think of the right to a fair trial, with an impartial judge, in some countries we think of a jury of our peers, the right to legal representation, and other similar requirements. However, we rarely think of our lawyer actually having the right to speak on our behalf during that trial as a requirement. It’s almost as if it was somehow implicit that if we are on trial, our lawyer should, at least, be able to speak. Well, it turns out that might not always be the case, which is why I found this piece of news recently published by the BBC particularly interesting: Charles Taylor’s lawyer silenced in war crimes court. According to the BBC, Liberian ex-leader Charles Taylor’s lawyer was temporarily banned from speaking at Taylor’s war crimes trial after losing his temper in court and referring to the prosecutor as a boy.

The BBC does not provide a lot of information as to how much defense attorney Courtenay Griffiths actually lost his temper nor to the appropriateness or inappropriateness of his behavior, and being as Taylor is facing 11 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, which includes training and commanding rebels who brutally murdered, raped, and maimed Sierra Leone civilians, one is tempted to think the judge is doing justice a favor by silencing his defense attorney. My only question is, how appropriate is such action in the context of a criminal case? Does this raise questions regarding protocol in criminal cases? What are the limits of speech in criminal course? And, similarly, how far can judges go to set limits and boundaries in such contexts?

Happy 200th Birthday Argentina

Paula — Tue, 25 May 2010 15:24:50 +0000

You may be wondering what Argentina’s 200th birthday has to do with laws and languages, honestly, when I set out to write this post I was wondering the same thing. Since I live in Argentina, I wanted to honor my country of residence with a little something on its big day and, as it turned out, there was something law and language related to blog about. But first, a little background info.

Background Info

Contrary to popular belief, Argentina is not exactly celebrating the bicentennial of its independence; it’s celebrating the bicentennial of a series of revolutionary events that occurred mainly throughout the week known as Semana de Mayo, which ultimately lead to its independence and, much further down the line, to its first constitution. During Semana de Mayo, viceroy Baltasar Hidalgo de Cisneros, who had been appointed by the Spanish crown, was removed from power by the Primera Junta (First Assembly). This Assembly, which was officially named the Junta Provisional Gubernativa de las Provincias del Río de la Plata a nombre del Señor Don Fernando VII (Provisional Governing Assembly of the Provinces of Río de la Plata in the Name of Señor Don Ferdinand VII) was originally created to govern in the name of the King of Spain, who at the time, was being held prisoner by Napoleon Bonaparte. Assemblies like the First Assembly emerged during the Napoleonic invasion of Spanish cities and occurred throughout much of what today is Latin America. They were not a form of independence, but rather a form of transitional or emergency government designed to maintain Spanish sovereignty.

However, through this revolutionary process, Spanish Juntas (Assemblies) began to lose power, particularly Junta de Sevilla, their main Assembly, which claimed sovereignty over all overseas possessions. Although the First Assembly did not recognize the independence of the Argentine state and governed mainly in the name of the Spanish crown, many historians believe this was a mask (known as the Mask of Fernando VII) covering the true revolutionary intentions of the political leaders of the time. Nonetheless, it was the first organized form of government of what would later become the Argentine state. Argentina did not declare its independence until July 9, 1816, but according to historians, that declaration would not have been possible without the First Assembly and the leaders and philosophy it helped to create.

The Language of the Revolution

From a linguistic point of view, reading about the revolution was fascinating. Although most historians describe a country that was ethnically divided between Spaniards, criollos, gauchos, native americans, etc. in all the historical texts cited, the leaders of the time referred to the people as one: el pueblo; thus transmitting a sense of unity that contradicts historical accounts and, which years later, would be reflected in the first draft of the constitution.

Something else I found interesting was that while the First Assembly was being formed there was an open, mass meeting, known as el Cabildo (taking its name from the government building in front of which it took place) where the people discussed and voted on certain key issues –except the people did not include women and only included upper class males of Spanish descent; therefore rendering the use of the word open quite questionable when historians refer to this meeting as a Cabildo Abierto. The people that were not allowed to participate in this open meeting gathered in the historical square known as Plaza de Mayo.

Regardless of what can only be described in our time as the linguistic inconsistencies that surrounded the First Assembly, the truth is the smart use of words and expressions like the people, open assembly, etc. created a sense of unity and freedom that clearly paved the way to Argentine Independence, the creation of the constitution (much further down the line), and what ultimately would become the Argentine people; who today are celebrating 200 years as such. This post, however, is just a reminder of the important role simple little words played in making that all possible.

The Words “State of Emergency” and Denial of Basic Human Rights

Paula — Thu, 13 May 2010 11:41:25 +0000

Growing up in California I can only think of one time when a “state of emergency” was declared: the Los Angeles Riots of 1992, and let me tell you, it was scary! Of course at the time I was only 13 years old and hearing words like “state of emergency” and “curfew” while watching my hometown burn down on TV and seeing the smoke from my window at the same time was something I was not prepared to see and never even thought possible. Other than earthquakes, I can sincerely say the riots were the most unsettling thing I ever experienced in my time in the United States.

Then I moved to Argentina and in 2001 watched the country go into default. I witnessed first-hand how people rioted and looted everything from supermarkets to mom and pop shops. I watched them empty stores out, break everything they couldn’t take, and throw food on the streets; but the most unsettling thing I saw then, other than the violence with which they acted, was people taking food from street floors like animals. I was 22 then, and I thought I had seen too much already, but then came law school.

In law school we learned all about the human rights violations of past military regimes in Argentina after declaring a “state of emergency” and literally putting constitutional rights (or better yet, the Constitution itself) on hold for a couple of decades. We learned how before the constitutional reform of 1994, the executive found a way to tip the balance of powers in its favor and legislate through decrees – only to further strengthen its legislative powers after the constitutional reform. We learned about how after the default, the government washed its hands of the financial disasters the population was suffering by declaring a “state of financial emergency” and making the Argentine people bear the weight of decades of inefficient economic policies and corruption.

Needless to say, after 31 years on this Earth, I have learned at least one thing: nothing good ever comes when governments use the words “state of emergency.” Today I heard the words “state of emergency” again, this time I’m not directly affected by them, but according to the New York Times, the words “state of emergency” are once again being used, in Egypt, to justify the denial of basic rights and freedoms; and they have been doing so since 1981. On Tuesday, the Egyptian parliament approved a government request to extend an emergency law that allows arresting people without charge, detaining prisoners indefinitely, limiting freedom of expression and assembly, and maintaining a special security court. The law supposedly only applies to cases of terrorism, the problem is that the concept of terrorism in Egyptian law is so broad and malleable that, according to Michael Slackman, “the government decision was immediately criticized by human rights groups, political activists and independent human rights monitors, who say they expect little to change in a nation that routinely uses the heavy hand of the police and prisons to silence political opposition.”

Hossam Bahgat, executive director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, told the New York Times that, “Even the claim that emergency powers will now be limited to terrorism and drug trafficking cases only is false. […] More dangerously, the culture of exceptionalism stays, and with it the message that security agencies are still above the law.”

The new law is being heavily criticized by the UN and Human Rights Watch and I don’t think I have the authority or knowledge of Egyptian law to add anything to their insightful reports, but as someone living in a country where concepts like “state of emergency” have lead to unimaginable atrocities I can say one thing: the fact that this “emergency” law has been in place for 29 years alone is reason enough to doubt its legitimacy.

Animal Cruelty as a Form of Freedom of Expression?

Paula — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:05:05 +0000

Yesterday, the US Supreme Court rejected a ban on videos of animal cruelty. The question at hand was whether or not to strike down a federal law that made it a crime to create or sell dogfight videos and other depictions of animal cruelty. The case related to the prosecution of Robert J. Stevens, a self proclaimed “authority on pit bulls” who compiled and sold videos showing dog fights. He received a 37-month sentence under the 1999 federal law that was struck down by the Supreme Court yesterday which banned “depictions of animal cruelty.”

Apparently, although dog fights are illegal in all 50 states of the United States, it is not illegal to profit from footage of dog fights. The Supreme Court decided yesterday that showing footage of animals being tortured and mutilated constitutes the exercise of freedom of expression guaranteed under the first amendment. As if that decision weren’t incoherent enough per se, according to the New York Times:

The government argued that depictions showing harm to animals were of such minimal social worth that they should receive no First Amendment protection at all. Chief Justice Roberts roundly rejected that assertion. “The First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter or its content,” he wrote.

This of course leads us to the obvious question, if you can’t restrict any form of freedom of expression what about, oh say, child pornography? But Chief Justice Roberts had an answer to that as well, according to him:

Child pornography, the chief justice said, is “a special case” because the market for it is “intrinsically related to the underlying abuse.”

The million dollar question here being: isn’t animal cruelty also related to “the underlying abuse”? Why else would we refer to it as cruelty if it wasn’t? For more on this, I recommend this New York Times article.

Related Post:
Will China Ban Dog and Cat Meat?