Jump to content


Photo

Conan Punching Camel & Animal Cruelty


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Strom

Strom

    Fearing No Evil

  • Admin
  • 8,502 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 06 October 2009 - 01:51 AM

Dogfighting Case Gets Its Day In Court
by NINA TOTENBERG

October 6, 2009
The Supreme Court hears a major free speech case on Tuesday that asks whether the government can make it a crime to sell or possess any depiction of animal cruelty.

The case is about dogfighting videos, but critics argue that it could apply to anything from photos in Field and Stream magazine or hunting videos, to Arnold Schwarzenegger punching a camel in Conan the Barbarian.

In 1999, Congress passed a law aimed initially at "crush videos." These are videos of women typically in high heels crushing small animals, like mice and kittens — apparently a sexual fetish.

The law, however, has broad language. It makes it a crime to possess or sell any depiction of animal cruelty — specifically the killing, wounding, torturing or mutilation of an animal — as long as the conduct is illegal in the place where the prosecution is brought.

Dogfighting And The First Amendment

Enter Robert Stevens, a pit bull lover — or exploiter, depending on who is telling the story. He did not make any dogfighting films or stage any fights. Instead, he compiled films made by others of pit bulls fighting mainly in Japan, where it is legal.

Stevens sold the films commercially. He says it was to promote the proper use and training of pit bulls. His critics say it was to make money.

The videos of dogs fighting each other in Japan ostensibly show how the fights are done more humanely there. Other videos show dogs catching wild boar and holding the prey for hunters, which is legal in many states.

In 2004, Stevens became the first and, so far, the only person to be tried under the animal cruelty depiction law. He was sentenced to three years in prison, more than twice as long as the sentence served by NFL player Michael Vick, who actually staged dogfights.

Stevens appealed his conviction, contending that the animal cruelty depiction law is unconstitutional, and a federal appeals court agreed. The court said the law was written so broadly that it could lead to up to five years imprisonment for selling a video featuring bullfighting in Spain, where it is legal, or hunting or fishing out of season in the U.S.

The government appealed and now is asking the Supreme Court to place depictions of animal cruelty in a small category of speech that gets no First Amendment protection — like child pornography, obscenity and incitements to violence.

Patricia Millett, who represents Stevens, says the law is an attempt to roll back the First Amendment guarantee of free speech based on nothing more than a congressional weighing of the pros and cons of certain ideas about animals. That, she says, amounts to censorship, plain and simple.

"The whole point of the Constitution is that it's not supposed to change just because a majority in Congress decides that it no longer thinks these images are, on balance, worthwhile," Millett says. "That's a pretty empty First Amendment, and it's never been the First Amendment that we've had in this country."

Hunting And The First Amendment

Humane Society President Wayne Pacelle disagrees.

"This is not speech. This is commercial activity of a sickening and barbaric type," Pacelle says. "The peddlers of this smut should find no safe harbor for it in the First Amendment. The courts have recognized that certain well-defined and narrowly tailored categories of speech play no essential part in the exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value that they may be regulated as to their content."

In short, Pacelle and the government contend that dogfighting videos are like child pornography and obscenity. They say the safeguard in the law is that it provides an exemption for depictions of animal cruelty that have "serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historic or artistic value."

And indeed, films considerably more gruesome than the Stevens videos are on the humane society Web site to illustrate that dogfighting is reprehensible. That leads critics to argue that Stevens wasn't prosecuted because of his video, but because of his viewpoint and the notion that despite his disclaimers, he was promoting dogfighting.

"Many people would consider illegal dogfighting acts to be the most heinous acts of animal cruelty. The fights can last two to three hours. The animals die from blood loss, shock," Pacelle says.

But Millett, backed by the National Rifle Association, notes that hunting videos are an enormous business in the United States.

"I don't know that hunting videos can be guaranteed that their image will be decided by a jury somewhere in the country to have serious value. Hunting is banned in the District of Columbia," Millett says.

The NRA notes that dove hunting is illegal in 10 states, so that under this statute, dove hunting photos in magazines or on TV would also be illegal in those states.

Serial Killer Argument

Critics of the animal cruelty law cite endless examples that could be fodder for prosecution. And a wide array of entertainment and news organizations, including NPR, have filed briefs contending that the law is unconstitutional.

Critics also worry that a bullfighting scene from the film The Sun Also Rises, which is based on the Hemingway novel, or the scene of Arnold Schwarzenegger as Conan the Barbarian punching a camel might someday be prosecuted as a crime.

And producers would have to spend oodles of money to convince a jury of the "serious value" of the film being prosecuted. As one lawyer puckishly put it, with Conan the Barbarian, "serious value" might be a stretch.


One of the chief sponsors of the animal cruelty statute, Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA), defends the bill on other grounds: He says that most serial killers started out torturing animals before they moved on to people.

"My objective here was to try to prevent the Ted Bundys and Jeffrey Dahmers and others from graduating as they did," Gallegly says.

Millett scoffs at that argument.

"There is no evidence whatsoever that the viewing of images of animals being wounded or killed causes people to become serial killers. If it did, we better ban hunting by children, too, and no one says that," Millett says.

If Congress wants to ban crush videos, she says, it can write a statute aimed specifically at that. Instead, she says, Congress, albeit it with caveats, banned all videos depicting the intentional wounding and killing of animals.

"That is using a bazooka to kill a gnat. And the First Amendment makes Congress go get the fly swatter," Millett says.

Just how the justices will react to this case promises to be interesting. There almost certainly are dog lovers on the court — and hunters. Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia has a wild boar's head on the wall in his basement. It is unknown whether he used a dog to catch and hold the animal during the hunt, a commonly used technique illustrated in one of Stevens' films.


Very serious issue that deserves watching. I'm a dog lover and I am sickened by the barbaric sport of dog fighting.

Also, I think it is interesting that the lawyer uses the word "might." That indicates a percentage chance that CTB has serious value. Serious value. CTB. How you like them apples? :D :)

Join and Support The Robert E. Howard Foundation!  Membership has Benefits! 

 

 

 


#2 amster

amster

    Maladjusted to the point of pychosis

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,219 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Outside the ordered universe, where the boundless daemon sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, blasphemes and bubbles at the center of all infinity.

Posted 06 October 2009 - 02:38 AM

Very serious issue that deserves watching. I'm a dog lover and I am sickened by the barbaric sport of dog fighting


Me, too.

Also, I think it is interesting that the lawyer uses the word "might." That indicates a percentage chance that CTB has serious value. Serious value. CTB. How you like them apples? :D :)


I think the law would require a distinction between real documented cruelty and acts that are merely "simulated", which I would suspect would be protected by the first amendment. Most films these days contain the disclaimer "no animals were harmed during filming". I seem to recall Mongo punching out a horse in Blazing Saddles, and several horses were impaled in Braveheart. It would seem rather silly to me to outlaw simulated violence to animals in film while movies and TV are chock full of humans being killed in any number of ways.
Posted Image
Money and muscle, that's what I want; to be able to do any damned thing I want and get away with it. Money won't do that altogether, because if a man is a weakling, all the money in the world won't enable him to soak an enemy himself; on the other hand, unless he has money he may not be able to get away with it.
--Robert E. Howard to Harold Preece, ca. June 1928--

#3 Seamvs

Seamvs

    Crom's Right Hand

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alba Nuadh

Posted 06 October 2009 - 03:29 AM

I agree with Damaged and yourself Strom. I love my dog but my cat on the other hand... ;)
Anyway, I always wondered how they did that scene with the Camel. Commonsense tells me Arnold didn't actually punch a camel and knock it out with such a sloppy punch. Animal rights activists already protested 'Conan the Barbarian' but for the pungee stick scenes with the horses and the trip wires.
I can see the negative side because after seeing the Camel scene who amongst us didn't want to try to knock out a camel. B) Please don't think any less of me. :)

Edited by Seamvs, 06 October 2009 - 04:37 AM.

Mitra! The ways of the Aesir were more to my liking.

#4 Crom's bells

Crom's bells

    Sinewy thews

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 726 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 October 2009 - 06:43 AM

I don't condone making sport of animals or causing grief or harm to them just for our enjoyment, but I found the scene where Conan punched the camel hilarious :D.

I'm in a rush for time, so I'll just summarize my thoughts here: I think the critics are overreacting. I certainly don't support the filming of dog fights, or *takes a deep breath* the high heel animal crushing fetish (have you guys actually seen pictures of it? I have. I nearly retched). But if people are killing or fighting one another all the time in action flicks, there certainly isn't any reason to condemn films where animals get beaten - unless these critics are willing to advocate the banning of Fight Club and Kill Bill, in which case I'd just /facepalm and post this picture:

http://pacificempire...ommon-sense.jpg

There's a fine line between "cruelty" and "entertainment". Example of former: dogfights. Example of latter: CtB.

#5 Mikey_C

Mikey_C

    Ancient Briton

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Waterlooville, UK

Posted 06 October 2009 - 10:37 AM

It disturbs me how ready people are to ban things these days. The "animal cruelty in movies leads to serial killing" argument sounds as spurious as the "pornography leads to rape" theory. Not that I'm in favour of animals being mistreated in movies or of women being abused in the porn industry. The focus needs to be on regulating the production, which, so far as animal cruelty in mainstream movies is concerned, seems to have been achieved. Society's attitude toward animals is so hypocritical anyway. How many people will have complained about the camel-punching scene whilst munching away on a factory-farmed burger?
Visit my blog: Necronomania

#6 Kortoso

Kortoso

    -=Reiver of the Western Marches=-

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern California

Posted 06 October 2009 - 05:37 PM

I am against animal cruelty as well, but certain craxy antics from certain fringe groups ruins what could be a very helpful movement.

The camel-punching was a fictional portrayal, as was the killings in that movie. The camel was hamdled humanely, although I think that some of the horse falls would not be permitted on a US set today.

My point is that there is a different between a portrayal for dramatic effect, and the actual deed. We don't need any humorless commissar telling us what we can't watch.



#7 drush9999

drush9999

    Adventurer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 286 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Coventry, England

Posted 06 October 2009 - 08:52 PM

Here in the UK some of the horse falls are already censored in Conan the Barbarian, the camel punch is intact though. Bizarrely it's cut from Conan the Destroyer when he meets the same camel :rolleyes:

Lots of old Westerns are censored here under animal cruelty laws because of using tripwires on horses.
I would prefer to show these things uncut with some kind disclaimer, thankfully there are no problems importing uncut movies from elsewhere.

Edited by drush9999, 06 October 2009 - 08:56 PM.

"But the law!" screamed Tu.
"I am the law!" roared Kull, swinging up his axe; it flashed downward and the stone tablet flew into a hundred pieces. The people clenched their hands in horror, waiting dumbly for the sky to fall.

#8 Guest_Tu for Kull_*

Guest_Tu for Kull_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 October 2009 - 01:50 AM

Hi all,

I am against animal cruelty as well, but certain crazy antics from certain fringe groups ruins what could be a very helpful movement.

The camel-punching was a fictional portrayal, as was the killings in that movie. The camel was handled humanely, although I think that some of the horse falls would not be permitted on a US set today.

My point is that there is a different between a portrayal for dramatic effect, and the actual deed. We don't need any humorless commissar telling us what we can't watch.


You mean PETA? A bunch of wacked-out D-bags?How warm&fuzzy that the USSC is going after the tough issues! <_<
Any one remember the China Beach episode? :huh: They were not buying the puppy for companionship,...

Tu

#9 mbern45

mbern45

    Warrior

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 117 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 07 October 2009 - 02:40 AM

It seems like pretty soon everything will be illegal the way things are going.

At some point society will just have to accept that not everyone can get what they want. Things will always favour some people over others. I'll all for treating animals well and not hurting them during the productions of movies, but do they really think that watching someone punch a camel is going to make me want to go do animal cruelty acts?

And will anyone actually be stupid enough to punch an actual camel? I'd like to see them try. They'd probably get a pretty nasty bite from the camel.

#10 Seamvs

Seamvs

    Crom's Right Hand

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alba Nuadh

Posted 07 October 2009 - 04:46 AM

Max Baer knocked out a boar.

An anecdote stilled passed down among native Livermoreans tells the tale that one day a family came to visit the Baers and during the visit went out to inspect the pigs. One young boy, anxious for a closer look at a particularly ferocious boar, climbed the fence, lost his balance, and fell into the pig pen. The boar started to attack the child, whereupon Max leaped into the pen and, with one mighty blow, knocked the boar unconscious.

Max Baer
Mitra! The ways of the Aesir were more to my liking.