From Audrey, a contributing author.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects a lot of speech that most of us consider stupid, wrong or even disgusting. But it doesn’t protect child pornography or those who sell it. The rationale is obvious: protecting children from the harm inherent in becoming subjects of pornographic materials is important. There is no literary, scientific, or educational value in child pornography.

Federal law also prohibits the creation, sale, or possession of materials depicting animal cruelty. The catalyst for the passage of this law, Title 18, U.S. Code §48, was to address so-called “crush videos,” which involve the torture and killing of small animals to satisfy a particularly perverted sexual fetish. The statute includes all forms of animal cruelty. It defines animal cruelty as “conduct in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed, if such conduct is illegal under Federal law or the law of the State.” 18 U.S.C. § 48 (c)(1). Note the caveat that the conduct must be illegal under state or federal law – this exempts hunting and other legal activities.

But the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently overturned the conviction of a man prosecuted under that law for selling dog fighting videos. The case is United States v. Stevens, which will be heard by the Supreme Court in the next term, which begins in October.

The government has a strong interest in preventing cruelty to animals and in discouraging desensitization to animal cruelty. Apart from the physical suffering animals are capable of enduring, people who abuse animals frequently abuse children and adults, too. Animal cruelty is strongly linked with domestic violence, child abuse and sexual assault. Prosecution of animal cruelty can be an important tool in responding to people who are or are at risk of becoming a threat to the safety of others. That’s why so many states make animal cruelty not just a misdemeanor, but a felony.

Dog fighting is a brutal, sadistic activity. Dogs used for fighting have their ears cropped and their tails docked, using crude, inhumane techniques. Injuries sustained in fighting can be severe, and they are often left untreated. Although pit bulls are most commonly used, other breeds are fought or used as bait dogs. Bait dogs are used in training to induce aggression; they have no value as a fighter, so their injuries are not treated. Bait dogs can be any breed; their teeth are commonly ground down so they do not injure the valuable fighting dog. Some routinely use stolen pets as bait dogs. As the general public learned from the Michael Vick case, the losing dog is usually left untreated or killed – and it is not uncommon for the loser to be hung, electrocuted, or killed in some other brutal way, as part of the event.

Dog fighting almost always goes hand in hand with other crimes, including illegal gambling, assault, and even homicide. Some dogs used for fighting, but not all, become a danger to humans. Dog fighting is a felony in all 50 states. Forty-five states, including Kansas and Missouri, have more general felony animal cruelty provisions.

The Third Circuit, following some line of reasoning that is not abundantly clear, concluded that it’s ok to punish the actual conduct of animal torture, but depictions of animal torture are protected by the First Amendment – so, violators of the laws against animal cruelty may profit from selling videos and photographs of their illegal activity.

The Third Circuit did compare depictions of animal cruelty with child pornography (and also, inexplicably, attempted to compare the facts in Stevens to a case dealing with the Free Exercise Clause, which is religion), but ultimately declined to rule based on a precedent set in the child pornography ruling, thus leaving the decision to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court should follow its precedent in the child pornography cases and decide that videos or pictures of felonious acts of animal cruelty are not protected speech.

Politico:

Free speech advocates from across the political spectrum are accusing President Barack Obama of impinging on First Amendment rights and are gearing up to take their case public.

At issue is an unprecedented directive that Obama- who has long railed against lobbyists as the personification of a corrupt Washington culture - issued last week barring officials charged with doling out stimulus funds from talking to registered lobbyists about specific projects or applicants for stimulus cash.

Under the directive, which began going into effect this week, agency officials are required to begin meetings about stimulus funding for projects by asking whether any party to the conversation is a lobbyist.

“If so, the lobbyist may not attend or participate in the telephonic or in-person contact, but may submit a communication in writing,” reads Obama’s memo, which requires the agencies to post lobbyists’ written communications online.

The Hill:

The hosting of a controversial Dutch politician and his allegedly anti-Islam film at the Capitol this evening is concerning and disappointing, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the sole Muslim in Congress, said Thursday.

“I am a strong an advocate of First Amendment free speech. However, this is not about free speech, but rather an issue of propriety, timing and venue,” Ellison said of Sen. Jon Kyl’s (R-Ariz.) invitation to Dutch member of parliament Geert Wilders to screen his short film “Fitna” for audiences in the Capitol this evening. Critics have accused the film of being anti-Islamic. (more…)

Kansas Meadowlark:

A recent Meadowlark article, “Free Speech” May Cost Kansas Citizen $7500, gave details from a civil fine hearing held by the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission in January, which was decided at their February meeting.

Kris Van Meteren brought a complaint to the Ethics Commission several months ago, and then talked to the press about his signed complaint. Van Meteren then found himself the subject of an ethics complaint for breaking confidentiality about his own complaint, and was later fined $7500.

This article shows the actual complaint filed against Van Meteren by the Ethics Commission, as well as the Commission’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (see below).

After the secret Executive Session held to discuss this case, which is part of Kansas Law, Commissioner Gerald Goodell made a motion to fine Van Meteren $2500 for violation of the first count, and $5000 for violation of the second count.  Van Meteren is facing a fine of $7500 for what he considers was “free speech” on his part.

From KSN in Wichita:

WICHITA, Kansas (AP) - A federal judge grants a reporter’s request to send Twitter posts from the courtroom during a trial.

U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten ruled Monday that the posts would not prejudice jurors since they’re told to avoid newspaper, broadcast and online reports about the case.

Redstate.com:

“Without a doubt, people are stepping more gingerly. People are tiptoeing their way through this.”- Ted Rall, liberal editorial cartoonist.

Last week’s firestorm over an editorial cartoon at the New York Post is still burning it’s way through the media and the blogosphere, and in the wake of Eric Holder’s declaration that Americans (read: white Americans) are cowards and James Clyburn’s claim that rejection of stimulus funds is motivated by racism, the reactions are naturally mixed and sometimes contentious. Reverend Al Sharpton, for example, is demanding investigations and protests. MSNBC is having shouting matches. Some cartoonists are simply preparing to self-censor and nevertheless suffer unintended consequences. The controversy is not soon to die down. (more…)

Reuters:

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Seventeen social networking sites in Europe including Facebook and MySpace signed on Tuesday a pact aimed at curbing “cyber-bullying” and protecting the privacy of underage users, the European Commission said.

The Commission, the 27-nation EU’s executive arm, said the agreement will cut the risks of children harassing peers online and curb “grooming” — the practice of adults befriending children online with the intention of committing sexual abuse.

“It is an important step forward toward making our children’s clicks on social networking sites safer in Europe,” Viviane Reding, EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media said in a statement.

Politico:

Even though no member of Congress has scheduled hearings on the Fairness Doctrine, it remains on a hot topic on both liberal and conservative shows.

Today, radio host Mario Solis Marich asked former President Bill Clinton if it was time for “some type of enforced media accountability.”

“Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side,” Clinton said, “because essentially there’s always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows and let face it, you know, Rush Limbaugh is fairly entertaining even when he is saying things that I think are ridiculous….”

Clinton said that there needs to be either “more balance in the programs or have some opportunity for people to offer  countervailing opinions.” Clinton added that he didn’t support repealing the Fairness Doctrine, an act done under Reagan’s FCC.