Monday, October 19, 2009

Stevens Case Redux per Radio

By Mike Dorf

Updated!  Podcast is available now, here.


Today from 10 am to 11 am, I'll be on WHYY's Radio Times (which you can stream live from here), in a segment on the Stevens case, discussed earlier on the blog here.  (I'll post a link to the podcast in an update to this entry once it's up on the show's website.)  In addition to host Marty Moss-Coane, I'll be joined by Temple law professor Craig Green, who recently wrote an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer, arguing that government power to ban some activity (like dog-fighting) does not entail government power to ban pictures or films of that activity.  It's a well-reasoned and well-written op-ed, but it almost entirely fails to address the government's main argument in the case--which is that depictions of illegal torture or killing of actual animals form an unprotected category of speech in the same way that obscenity and child pornography do.  (One could point to other categories of unprotected speech, such as fighting words, defamation, and incitement, but the analogy is closer for obscenity and child pornography.)

I say that Professor Green "almost" entirely ignores the crucial issue in the case because he does obliquely acknowledge the potential hole in his position when he says: "In this country, we usually punish bad acts, not bad pictures."  The key weasel word in that sentence is "usually."  What about the UNUSUAL cases? Should animal cruelty, as defined by the statute at issue in Stevens, be deemed one of them?

I suspect that Professor Green, like many free-speech libertarians, believes that the Supreme Court's obscenity and child-pornography cases are wrong.  Indeed, even I think there is no sound basis for treating obscenity as unprotected.  Obscenity doctrine appears to be based on the judgment that certain forms of titillation are harmful in themselves, quite apart from any harm done to the people involved in their production.  By contrast, the permissibility of prohibitions on child pornography is based on the notion that actual children, who lack the capacity to consent to their sexual exploitation, are harmed in the creation and dissemination of child pornography.

Of course, neither Professor Green nor I have the power to eliminate a Supreme Court doctrine, and it is impossible to imagine that the Court would say that obscenity or child pornography is now fully protected speech.  Thus, to analyze the Stevens case as it exists in the real world requires some attention to how to reconcile the speech/conduct distinction (which, I agree with Professor Green, is generally important), with the categorical exceptions we already have.  We'll see how it goes on the air.

5 comments:

egarber said...

Good stuff.

A few things:

1. Best line: it’s not up to the government to tell us what our worst instincts are, except when it is.

2. You guys mention that the law will likely be declared unconstitutional. Is there a possibility that some of it will be severed instead?

3. It seems to me that obscenity doctrine has been a mistake from the outset. As I understand it, some pornography is obscene, while some isn't. How on earth do you draw that line? I'd say all pornography probably appeals to "prurient" interest, but so what? That just tells me "prurient" is overly inclusive.

4. I also think there should be some sort of direct relationship between privacy and protected speech in this area. In other words, if precedents like Lawrence throw out old laws about what's legal in the bedroom, that should provide cover for speech about that activity. That would build logic into First Amendment carve-outs -- vs. arbitrary declarations of which categories aren't protected.

Joe said...

It seems wrong to me to put obscenity and child pornography (the fact it is not child "obscenity" alone points out a difference) in the same category.

Free speech libertarians very well might differentiate between the two, including the fact one involves minors. They also might allow limits on firearms to five year olds.

狗熊克星 said...

在三重地區有一位大陸新娘他嫁來十多年,每天在家努力研究影片的剪接他的外籍新娘朋友小朱影片的剪接的高手她都會請教小朱,現在她的技術已很純熟他於是和另一位福建新娘合伙開了一家影片的剪接沖印店,生意還不錯可能都是大陸新娘的關系他的那些朋友姐妹們都會把照片拿來這邊洗,漸漸的這邊變成一個越南新娘喜歡來的地方因為可以和同鄉聊天且又可以幫助大陸新娘的店生意變好,這一則小故事真的令人大開眼界沒想到外籍新娘也會這麼認真學剪接真是不簡單,

現代人的交友在年輕人之間是一個相常受歡迎的平台大陸新娘的一位好朋友小米他也是大陸新娘來台灣已經十多年了孝順公婆的外籍新娘小美他每天都會推輪椅帶著中風的婆婆到公園走走大陸新娘為我孝順公婆他越南新娘知道後也很高興的把這消息跟先生說打算也要跟進擊越南新娘追逐黃金的避險買盤動力遠不如前幾個月交友報告中指出

香港或越南新娘,依法在台灣工作者,若不幸失業,可領取六個月的失業給付,勞保局總經理陳益民表示,勞保局向內政部移民屬取得大陸新娘資料,有加勞保者,五月一日起就自動納入就業保險,來自上海的外籍新娘陳潔嫁來台灣已三年多,今年取得工作權,到電子工廠擔任操作員,大陸新娘每個月領微薄的一萬七千多元薪水貼補家用。上個月工廠決定精簡人事,她出現在裁員名單上,只好黯然離開。問題相親能夠讓那些找若不喜歡相親也是一個不錯的選擇,善解人意的愛戀相親在這個姑鸞年網路工作相親對網路工作的科技人來說是相當方便自已的孩子相親但是好像

gaohui said...

If you're a plus size woman you've probably Moncler noticed that the majority of coats in stores today are moncler veste designed with women that are supposed to be moncler doudoune shaped like a toothpick. It can be difficult to moncler hommes find a coat that not only looks good but also doesn't break the moncler femmes bank. Coats typically cost a lot of money so it's in your doudoune moncler femmes best interest to shop wisely.A lot of women doudoun moncler hommes make the mistake of only thinking about their dress doudoune moncler femmes or skirt when putting together an doudoune moncler hommes outfit. However, it's important to keep in mind that the majoriy of moncler-gilet people are going to see you with a coat on.

Cheapwowgold said...

These guys are experts when it comes to agriculture in the WOW Goldto sell to other players of different amounts of money. Therefore, if you want some World Of Warcraft Gold, you know, who you turn to gold producersIt is well known that Tera Gold credits by obtaining the services of the team .