Rhetorical Comments.final Portfolio

Katie Jordan ENG 111 Mr. Weinkam 22 October 2009 Animal Cruelty v. Free Speech: A Rhetorical Analysis Should videos displaying acts of animal cruelty be protected under the Freedom of Speech? This question will be heavily argued in the Supreme Court (U.S. v. Stevens) as the United States awaits the possibility of another exception to the First Amendment. Existing exceptions include obscenity and child pornography, but should animal cruelty media be added to the list? At what point are there too many exceptions to the First Amendment limiting America’s right to free speech? Two articles analyze this U.S. v. Stevens case, arguing whether Robert Stevens, dogfighting film and video producer, should be indeed found guilty of violating the law through these animal cruelty videos (he did not directly participate in dog attacks, he only filmed them) or if he should be protected by the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. The articles also debate whether a federal law for the purpose of prosecuting those who are involved with animal cruelty videos should remain intact. Both articles are well argued, using mostly logos and pathos to support their positions for or against animal cruelty videos as an act of free speech. In an article from www.opposingviews.com entitled “Supreme Court to Decide if Dogfighting Videos are Free Speech,” the Humane Society of the United States uses sufficient logos throughout the article to support their main claim to defend the rights of animals. They believe promoting cruelty to animals in horrific, repulsive videos should not be protected under the U.S. Constitution. The Humane Society is specifically addressing the case of Robert Stevens, but also addressing animal cruelty videos in

1

general. There is a current law (the federal Depiction of Animal Cruelty Law) that was passed in 1999 by congress in hopes to stop the creation, sales, and possession of media containing animal cruelty. Those found guilty of any violations of the law can be fined and/or imprisoned for no more than 5 years. Animal activists argue, “The federal Depiction of Animal Cruelty Law is not only constitutional but urgently needed to stop the abuse of animals.” They believe that by keeping this law instilled, animal abuse will lessen because of the consequences against those who create, sell, and possess videos containing it. They argue that this law does not go against the First Amendment. Clear logic is used to explain why this law is certainly necessary to protect animals from wrongful abuse when they go on to say, “The law caused the crush video industry to recede dramatically and no prosecutions of purveyors of crush videos have been needed in the decade that the law was in force.” Crush videos are a large industry of animal abuse filled media where women in spiked heal skewer small animals and harm them in other despicable manners, but they humane society explains that’s this law is crucial in reducing the number of crush videos made, as evident by the lack of prosecutions in the past decade. Using more logos, the Humane Society goes on to say, “The law has never been used against documentary filmmakers, journalists or others engaging in legitimate speech –– the only three prosecutions under the law have involved dogfighters who sold videos in interstate commerce for profit.” This explains that the law has only been needed, and in fact used, when dogfighters make illegal, abusive videos at the expense of animals. This fact addresses the specific case of Robert Stevens. Stevens produces videos of dogfights, and in the opinion of the Humane Society, he is therefore enabling this cruel industry. This explains why animal activists are fighting to keep this law intact. The Humane

2

Society logically argues why the law should be in place by describing past incidences and using valid explanations to back up their main point that Stevens should not be protected under the First Amendment. Similar to the Humane Society’s article, the New York Times article “Animal Cruelty and Free Speech” uses significant logos to argue the other side of this case, claiming that the federal Depiction of Animal Cruelty Law is unconstitutional. The article insists Stevens should be protected under the First Amendment. The author explains, “The federal appeals court reversed his conviction, ruling that the federal law under which he was prosecuted is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court should uphold that well-reasoned decision.” This article addresses the fact that the federal appeals court reversed Stevens’ original conviction, and they believe with good reason. The author argues that another reversal by the Supreme Court would disagree with the U.S. Constitution, just as the federal appeals court declared. Also, the author does not try to illogically argue that cruelty to animals is a good thing; instead, he addresses that animal cruelty is in fact horrible and despicable. The fact that this article addresses the opposing side’s view in this manner only makes the argument stronger. The author argues that since Stevens only captured these acts on film and did not partake in them, he should be protected under the First Amendment. He says, “Some of the material in this case is truly stomach-churning. There are people who enjoy watching animals being tortured and killed.” He understands the horror behind torturing animals, but explains that isn’t pertinent in this case because Stevens never committed any animal abuse himself. He addresses the other side, strengthening the main claim, yet logically explains why his side is right. He uses logos to go on to say, “This [animal abuse] is not the only deeply offensive speech protected by the

3

Constitution. Nazis are allowed to march, and racists are allowed to spew racism.” He uses the fact that other forms of unpopular speech are protected under the Constitution to claim that videos displaying equally horrible things (animal abuse) should not be any different. This is a very effective point and use of logos to support his claim by addressing the opposing side before crushing its argument. Although both the Humane Society’s article “Supreme Court to Decide if Dogfighting Videos are Free Speech” and the New York Times article “Animal Cruelty and Free Speech” use significant logos to support their main arguments, both articles slightly incorporate pathos. Just the topic animal cruelty that both articles discuss uses emotional appeal without going into explicit detail. The Humane Society’s article says, “Stevens apparently shipped three dogs to Japan for the fights shown in one video. Some of the fights last for more than an hour, and the dogs are bloodied and suffering throughout.” Steven’s video captures horrific animal cruelty. Explicit details about what exactly happens to the dogs is not given, but the idea that the dogs are suffering and bleeding triggers an emotional response. The Humane Society is using an underlying warrant that people are against animal cruelty as a basis of the pathos used in the article. Prompting this emotional response for readers strengthens their argument. On the other hand, the New York Times article uses a slightly more detailed explanation of animal cruelty in crush videos, “There is also, the federal government’s brief says, a market for ‘crush videos’ in which women trample small animals with their bare feet or while wearing high-heeled shoes, images that some viewers are said to find sexually arousing.” It is surprising that the author in this article uses the same pathos as the humane Society’s article, explaining that animals are unexplainably tortured in these crush videos. This

4

author also addresses the fact that this abusive material sexually arouses some viewers, knowing that the reader would initially be drawn into taking the Humane Society’s side. This statement gives the reader a lot of sympathy for the animals using pathos that might be misunderstood as helping the opposing argument, but is actually used to support Stevens and Free Speech. By addressing the sympathy many people naturally possess for abused animals, his argument is strengthened. The author focuses on why people should not let that sympathy for abused animals direct their opinion of Stevens’ case. Stevens was not directly involved with these horrific actions, and should not be punished for publishing “unpopular material”. The Humane Society’s article best conveys pathos by explaining crush videos in even more vivid detail, “…including so-called ‘animal crush’ videos where women in stiletto heels crush, impale, and even burn small animals in order to titillate viewers.” This use of pathos explicitly grabs the reader’s sympathy for animals, for these crush videos are described with such horrific, descriptive word choice. As one can see, this same explanation of crush videos was also explained in the New York Times article, yet this article uses the pathos within the explanation of crush videos in a different way. The Humane Society seems to describe crush videos in a more ghastly manner, using words like “burn” and “impale”, to trigger a more severe emotional response from the reader. By using more details when describing crush videos, one might conclude that the New York Times article left out that kind of detailed explanation on purpose or that the Humane Society’s article embellished the details of the crush videos on purpose. Both articles twist this description to support their main argument. Whether the Humane Society’s article was more detailed or not, both of these articles efficiently use pathos to convey

5

their argument; therefore, based on the efficiently used pathos and logos in these articles, I cannot conclude that one is argued better than the other, after all, this is a Supreme Court dispute and both sides have a legitimate case. The final support for both articles’ argument is the main reason why I cannot reach a conclusion to whether one argument is better argued than another. The articles’ claims are both logically explained and well supported. The Humane Society’s final support says, “Cruelty to animals is a serious social and legal concern to Americans, and, as with children, the animal victims cannot defend themselves. There’s no speech at risk here–– just the most appalling forms of cruelty known to humanity.” They argue that cruelty to animals will drastically continue if the Supreme Court does not realize that animals cannot protect themselves and they need this law in place in order to subside the abuse. Logos and pathos are used here to conclude. Logos is used to emphasize why Stevens cannot be protected under the First Amendment, for the animal videos are solely depicting cruelty and are not an issue of Free Speech. Using words such as “appalling” when describing animal abuse is a good use of pathos. The reader is left with an immense emotional response and desire to help all the defenseless animals. On the other hand, the New York Times article uses logos and warrants to explain the final support for the author’s main claim. He says, “All 50 states have laws against animal abuse. The best way to fight animal cruelty is to enforce these laws more vigorously and to increase the penalties. Anyone with an ounce of decency should be tempted to ban animal-abuse videos, but anyone with an appreciation for the First Amendment understands why we cannot.” Again, this author is addressing the other side’s stance on the topic and giving advice on how to help the abuse problem. However, he still stresses the importance of protecting

6

Stevens under the First Amendment. The author uses logos to explain that the laws against committing animal cruelty should be enforced stronger rather than using the unconstitutional federal Depiction of Animal Cruelty Law to convict the people solely videotaping the gruesome abuse. The author also addresses the reader in a way where he assumes they think animal abuse to be horrendous. Through this warrant, the author is able to make a convincing argument for the sake of the First Amendment. Both articles’ final statement addresses the claims for that particular side well, only making the decision more difficult of which article is better argued. One’s initial reaction might be to protect the animals and eliminate all videos containing animal abuse, convicting Stevens in the process, because that is the initial emotion response for many, but the case must be looked at objectively in terms of Free Speech. In the courtroom, the final verdict for the case must be decided by the logical arguments presented by both sides, showing the importance of logos in both articles. The Supreme Court must decide whether Stevens was in violation of the federal law or if he is protected by Free Speech; they cannot solely go with the emotional response, which is what makes this case so difficult. The pathos in the articles uses the emotion response for the abused animals well to support their arguments, even though they are on opposing sides, but it is the logos in the articles that best supports each article’s position on this case. One could conclude that the New York Times article was better argued because the author address the other side’s view, yet the Humane Society’s article was also extremely well argued in terms of logos. This is why I cannot make a distinct decision to whether one is argued better than the other. This case is still being addressed in the Supreme Court. A verdict has not been publicized1. 1

Find out what happened yet??? 7

Bibliography Editorial. New York Times 5 Oct. 2009. The New York Times. 5 Oct. 2009. Web. 7 Oct. 2009. . The Humane Society. "Supreme Court to Decide if Dogfighting Videos are Free Speech." Opposing Views. 5 Oct. 2009. Web. 7 Oct. 2009. .

8