Is watching illegal dog fights a constitutional right?
Hear that dog yelping in agony? That's a cry of freedom! So the US Supreme Court has decided, ruling that a law aimed at banning videos of animal cruelty is an infringement of the first amendment, freedom of speech.
Robert J Stephens, owner of a business called Dogs of Velvet and Steel had been sentenced to three years in prison for producing videos like Japanese Pit Fights and Pick-A-Winna which showed pit bulls fighting and attacking other animals, including a "gruesome" scene of an attack on a farmyard pig.
The Supreme Court has ruled in his favour agreeing with the argument that the law is "over broad" and so invalid under the first amendment.
The original law against material depicting animal cruelty has a curious history. It was designed to outlaw what are apparently known as "crush videos".
Given that the Supreme Court has invested time and money in a graphic explanation of what these are, I can do little better than quote them.
"Crush videos often depict women slowly crushing animals to death with their bare feet or while wearing high heeled shoes, sometimes while talking to the animals in a kind of dominatrix patter over the cries and squeals of the animals."
Given there is a sexual element in these, the Supreme Court appears to be sympathetic to the rationale behind the ban. Simple cruelty they find less offensive.
They find that while dog fighting is outlawed in all 50 states and there is a long tradition of laws against animal cruelty there is no such "tradition prohibiting depictions of such cruelty".
They find the law is of such "alarming breadth" that it could include merely killing and wounding animals and find no reason why it should not also apply to videos about hunting.
On the face of it, the ruling sounds perverse, although not as perverse as crush videos.
But there is a hugely important logic that lies behind the ruling. The Supreme Court honed in on government arguments that such videos fall outside protected free speech because they are not historical, instructional or of use to society and have "a minimum redeeming value".
That, they say "as a free floating test for first amendment coverage...is startling and dangerous" adding:
"Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise the judgement simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it."
The court points out that most speech doesn't have much intrinsic merit (there is a learned argument about the gap between "scant", "trifling" and "serious") and that doesn't mean that it can or should be banned.
I don't think the argument differs much in practice in most Western democracies, but in theory there is a huge distinction between a state that under a constitution allows freedom of speech, and permits the government to make argument for exceptions and one where the government doles out permission to say or do specific things.
Have they got the balance right here?
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~06~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Allow the videos, but ban the people. The people engaged in making or promoting or watching this kind of wanton cruelty have no intrinsic value as far as I concerned.
Complain about this comment
Watching them might not be, but if you're CONDUCTING them, then you should... expect to earn 1.5 million/yr as a professional quarterback!
-- Zing!
(In all fairness, part of Michael Vick's contract with the Philly Eagles included a certain amount of community service... or something...)
Complain about this comment
I think the opinion was not very well presented - I read it to say at the very last that the nasty crushing episodes, and the dog fights, are ALREADY criminal or obscene, and since those incidents formed the basis for the government arguments, it did not justify the broad language of the restriction. In other words, congress in a jiffy can keep those horrible videos of criminal acts criminal, but with narrower more artfully drafted and specific legislation.
Tom & Jerry, Bugs Bunny and Sponge Bob Squarepants depict some pretty twisted cartoon animal cruelty - I think this is a reasonable decision, poorly written and spun way off base by the media (ahem). But I guess if properly spun it could look like a POINT SCORED against those lefty socialist bleeding heart liberal anti-crushing animal lovers, and a POINT FOR for the NRA (?) (I mean, is that the point here - does support for the NRA mean you support perverts watching the crushing of soft fuzzy animals?).
Complain about this comment
Oh, by the way Squirrel - better head for the hills some of these bloggers wear spiky shoes
Complain about this comment
AN ABSOLUTELY APPALLING DECISION. Caps justified.
The US Supreme Court votes to uphold "crush videos" in the context of "free speech."
I had never even heard of such a thing. It turns out there is a fetish that involves the ecstasy of watching small living creatures revoltingly put to death.
What about the "fetish" of cannibalism? Should that be protected "free speech"?
What about hate speech, then? Can we even claim such a thing exists? What if someone attaches a claim to feeling ecstatic, orgasmic joy from expressing unutterable lies about assorted ethnic groups? Or any other types of groups?
Yes, this is an all-time low, Mr Mardell. Of course dog fights, cock fights & no-holds-barred fights of any kind have no place in a civilised society.
These types of behaviours are nothing more than incubators for anarchy and crime.
There are vitally important reasons for having laws that proscribe cruelty, bullying, violence -- and for enforcing such laws.
This is the Supreme Court, remember, that also allowed corporations the freedom to spend any amount of money they wish in political campaigns.
Such decisions are a threat to the American system, pure and simple.
And unfortunately we do not at this time have the instruments available to us to disarm these threats.
So did the Founders err? Did they have too high an opinion of jurists? Were they unable even to imagine the kind of society America has become today?
Complain about this comment
More to your point:
Um... How can we make watching ANYTHING illegal? Really? Would I have to pay civic fees when my sons accidentally stream a censurable/censored video? Really?
(Although, I reserve the right to revoke their allowance if I find out they're streaming something they shouldn't, TYVM.)
-- Un-Enforceable laws are a bad idea.
Besides, you may be saying something completely idiotic, you may be doing something totally wrong, but you are free to say it and we are free to observe your foolishness.
BTW: Didn't Justice Sotomayor bring up the example that a documentary film about cruelty to animals would have been made illegal with this ruling? Woof.
Complain about this comment
The only one I would paid for is to see the producer of these things thrown to the Pit Bulls
Complain about this comment
4. At 7:44pm on 20 Apr 2010, frayedcat wrote:
Oh, by the way Squirrel - better head for the hills some of these bloggers wear spiky shoes
________
For the record - I prefer flat sandals. Spike Heels are bad for the posture and are merely designed to show off a woman's calf muscles, promoting unnecessary objectification of women.
Save the squirrels. hug a tree. recycle. bike to work. etc...
Complain about this comment
Keep Free Speech -- Ban Spike Heels!!!
Spike Heels are dangerous for small furry animals, for gender equality, and are a MEDICAL HAZARD!
Just think about all of the unnecessary medical expenses that are incurred every year from dangerous spike heel induced falls, lower back pain and ESCALATOR ACCIDENTS!
Save the rodents!
Promote gender equality!
Prevent extemporaneous medical expenses!!!
Spike Heels. A danger to humankind.
Complain about this comment
The Supreme Court ruled that even videos that depict wanton animal cruelty deserve free speech protections under the First Amendment.
It was an 8-1 decision (not even close).
The court's ruling overturns the conviction of Robert J. Stevens, whose website, "Dogs of Velvet and Steel," offered videos showing dogfights, as well as some showing pit bulls mauling pigs.
Stevens had been convicted under a law, originally authored by Republican U.S. Rep. Elton Gallegly of California, that was incited by reports of crush videos.
Crush videos often depict women slowly crushing animals to death with their bare feet or while wearing high-heeled shoes,' sometimes while 'talking to the animals in a kind of dominatrix chatter over the cries and yelps of the animals.
What kind of human animals watch this sort of thing, find it enjoyable, and would want it to be legal?
The justices found that while dog fighting is outlawed in all 50 states and there is a long tradition of laws against animal cruelty there is no such "tradition prohibiting depictions of such cruelty".
Tell me how you get a depiction of such cruelty without inflicting animal cruelty?
I am shocked and sad.
Gandhi once said, “You can judge a society by the way it treats its animals."
Complain about this comment
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them.
Mark Twain (1835-1910)
Can there possible be any more that can be added?
Complain about this comment
I believe the idea behind this is that videos are a visual extension of speech (i.e. made to send a message with visuals and sound, rather than just sound), so, under that context, distributing videos of just about anything should be protected by the first amendment. The actions required to make these videos are illegal, but the act of watching or selling them is not. If you can censor videos of animal cruelty, well, that is opening a very large can of worms and the phrase "slippery slope" comes to mind. I'm glad to see the supreme court noticed the thin line here.
Now this doesn't mean your local police office can't be informed of the videos and put a stop to their production.
Complain about this comment
The US Supreme Court will come down on the side of anyone making money...a conservative court. Doesn't feel the same about starving people and the poor.
Complain about this comment
In their zest to uphold our constitutional rights the Supreme Court once again protected something that ought to be against the law. Who or what are these Justices trying to protect? The Constitution?
Somehow, I doubt very seriously that what the authors of the First Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States had in mind when they wrote it was to protect despicable or obscene acts like this or the people that profit from them.
Why is a vicious dog fight deserving of protection and considered a manifestation of speech? The beautiful animals that are being abused did not voice their preferences, and the promoters of these events are often anonymous or seldom, if ever, voice an opinion on the subject.
If the right that is being protected is our freedom to broadcast and watch anything and everything that is available or takes place in the world should we now expect to see pornography, child or spousal abuse, summary executions, graphic displays of murder or accident victims?
Complain about this comment
Happy 4:20!!!!!!!!!!!!!:):):)
The Best Unofficial Holiday Ever!
Decriminalize and Legalize Marijuana 2010 California Style!!!!!!!!
The Countdown is on! One hour and ten minutes!
Thank you, USA, Great Britain, Canada and Western Nations for our best in the world freedom of speech!!!!!!!!
Sure, sometimes you have to take the bad with the good, but most would rather have freedom of speech overall anyday! As rough as some things are, isn't it worse to take away freedom? Watching/filming illegal dog fights or other illegal animal fights should obviously be against the law (hence the word illegal), while hunting videos for educational and historical should absolutely be legal. What happened to common sense here?
People always gotta test the limits.
But we have the freedom of choice of what to watch. Hopefully, the good in people will win out. It usually does.
Complain about this comment
"They (the Supreme Court) find that while dog fighting is outlawed in all 50 states and there is a long tradition of laws against animal cruelty there is no such "tradition prohibiting depictions of such cruelty"."
And just how do they suppose these "depictions" are created? Through Computer Generated Immage? I highly doubt that the average American has the equipment (or money to buy the equipment) required to make a top notch DreamWorks or Pixar film, so my guess is they simply vidio tape the real thing.
Personally, I agree with frayedcat at #3. They've got it spot on. Correct ruling, badly written opinion.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 5, Maria Ashot:
You're confusing an illegal act with the depiction of the act.
'What about the "fetish" of cannibalism? Should that be protected "free speech"?'
Videos depicting cannibalism are protected as free speech. The act isn't, but then again neither is the act of dog fighting.
'What about hate speech, then? Can we even claim such a thing exists? What if someone attaches a claim to feeling ecstatic, orgasmic joy from expressing unutterable lies about assorted ethnic groups? Or any other types of groups?'
That is also protected. Selling videos of people engaging in hate speech is as well. Otherwise, we'd have to destroy all video of Hitler's speeches. Hate crimes aren't protected, though.
Cases where the illegal act is performed solely to sell videos (child pornography for instance) is a different matter altogether. In those cases, the sale of videos of the act is not protected.
If the feds can prove that money from the dog fighting videos is channeled back to the people involved in the rings, that's conspiracy and the guy will do time (like Mr. Vick).
Complain about this comment
The Supremes have got it right. Defining constitutionality is a tricky thing, and overly broad statutes rarely, if ever, survive the test. The real question is: Could we compel the producers, cameramen, etc. of said videos to name the individuals involved in committing the actual crimes under penalty of law?
Complain about this comment
Mark: '"I don't think the argument differs much in practice in most Western democracies, but in theory there is a huge distinction between a state that under a constitution allows freedom of speech, and permits the government to make argument for exceptions and one where the government doles out permission to say or do specific things. Have they got the balance right here?"
A very provokitive and interesting question indeed. For what it's worth, I think that in theory, the type of government with a constitutional foundation, the one where preset red lines are drawn which everyone knows may not be crossed that can later be built upon when and where necessary is the better of the two. But in practice, given the fact that the US government is unfortunately, throughout history, no stranger to abusing our constitution (not only the re first amendment, but privacy rights, cruel and unusal punishment, due process etc,) it's really a matter of six of one or half a dozen of another. Since power corrupts everywhere, and since as a result of that corruption laws are abused, I believe that both forms of democracy are just as good as each other.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 14, SaintDominick:
"If the right that is being protected is our freedom to broadcast and watch anything and everything that is available or takes place in the world should we now expect to see pornography, child or spousal abuse, summary executions, graphic displays of murder or accident victims?"
Those were all legal before the latest ruling and still are.
Google "Budd Dwyer shoots himself video". My understanding is that one TV station actually broadcast it on the nightly news. The government can't do anything to stop it (though advertisers can).
Complain about this comment
Ref. 15, LucyIllinois:
"Happy 4:20!!!!!!!!!!!!!:):):)
The Best Unofficial Holiday Ever!
Decriminalize and Legalize Marijuana 2010 California Style!!!!!!!!"
We're doing our part out here in Denver. Civic Center Park is filled with people sparkin' 'em up. : )
Unfortunately, it's going to rain on their celebration in a little bit. Then again, I'm not sure anyone will notice.
Complain about this comment
I agree with the philosophy of "ban the act" but then acts such as animal cruelty child sex are promoted overseas, in countries that permit the acts or lack the resources to prosecute. However, I still agree with the opinion. Banning ANY speech is a slippery slope. It is the most disturbing speech that needs protection in the first place. Thus, I think that other forms of speech declared unprotected by the First Amendment including fighting words in 1942; threats in 1969; speech inciting illegal activity in 1969; and obscenity in 1973 should also be allowed. What if I said for example that I didn't like some oppressive law that the US had passed, that it should not be obeyed and that if the government persisted in trying to enforce that law that citizens should arm themselves and take to the streets? That would violate all of those prohibitions on the First Amendment, yet such speech is of the very type the First Amendment is designed to provide. Likewise, I cannot legally burn and step on an American flag in protest, yet this is also worthy of free speech protection. The Supreme Court is just playing games here by maintaining a ban on such things, and then saying we need to protect against dog fighting videos. Like child porn, dog fighting is not speech in that it does not convey any real message. Why does dog fighting not fall under "obscenity", which is prohibited (and should not be, by the way)? The law on these animal videos was designed, after all, to apply only to the deviant sexual interest in such videos.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
To #22 Ronald Austin.
I was going to write my opinion and when I read yours, I decided that you basically wrote what I was thinking too.
Good job.
I might want to add this: If the Government can ban dog fighting, child molestation, animal cruelty, and other forms of cruelty, then it only makes sense that some kind of federal law concerning the watching of these videos can also be banned. It seems to be common sense. Especially child porn. It is illegal to possess it (and it should be) but, under the law, it is not illegal to view it on the computer. Because of the current laws, child porn is EVERYWHERE on the computer now. Almost every adult site has a link associated with it that is EXTREME child porn.
There is that DOMA law which made it illegal for two members of the same sex to marry, yet, congress feels that the savage videos portraying animal cruelty, children being sadistically raped, should be protected. Nine Federal Judges were caught viewing child pornography in the early 2000s and nothing was done as that was their constitutional right.
That is sad.
These kinds of decisions only encourage these types of violations against children, women, and animals.
This is why the Catholic Church had so much trouble. Everyone knew what was going on for centuries yet, no one wanted to get involved and fight against it. As a result, millions of children were sexually abused directly and indirectly. It may explain why 90% of all Gay men in the U.S. are catholic. You think we have a problem concerning child molestation now? With Congress's unwillingness to get involved in banning the viewing of these things, it will only get MUCH worse.
I think we need a new Government.
Complain about this comment
22 Ronald Austin
Burning or stepping on the flag of the United States, or for that matter, flying it upside down,is not illegal, but has consistently been upheld in the courts as expression of free speech. This includes the Supreme Court of the U.S..
I agree that this statute was too broad. If interpreted as written, it would prohibit the Humane Society from showing video footage of animal abuse to raise funds or otherwise draw awareness to the issue. Going back to the drawing board and drafting legislation more specific to the offenses in question is the best practice.
Complain about this comment
24 4MichaelHoffman
"This is why the Catholic Church had so much trouble. Everyone knew what was going on for centuries...It may explain why 90% of all Gay men in the U.S. are catholic."
Ummm... care to substantiate this startling bit of news?
Sorry to disabuse you, but you've conflated and confused two entirely different topics- homosexuality is NOT the same as pedophilia. The vast majority of homosexuals of either gender have not the least attraction to children (something sadly which the Boy Scouts of America have yet to learn...)
Homosexuality is largely if not entirely genetic in origin. So abuse does not and cannot "cause" homosexuality.
Complain about this comment
Has anybody read the ruling or watched the vid? I haven't, but other news sources like AP mention two things that are important here:
1. The court seemed to feel the previous law was too wide and at least one judge wanted to see crush videos put in the same category as child pornography. Seems reasonable to me.
2. The person who made the videos claims they were for educational purposes. That could be a reasonable argument. Someone who hasn't looked at the video would have no way of knowing.
Complain about this comment
A couple of my own observations:
1. Is human induced dog fighting any crueler than nature? Did anybody read Jack London's "White Fang"? Let's burn the book!
2. Talking about man and nature, is this an example of man being unnatural? What was the name of the elephant that got kicks out of stepping on, and crushing ducks? Aren't killer whales cruel to a wounded seal apparently for the fun of it? These are things I've only read about and don't know for sure so I'd like some feedback.
3. If cruelty was the main concern then let's ban the NFL!
Complain about this comment
Nowhere in the constitution is there any mention of animal rights. Sorry - it's about people and their rights, as in "We the People...."
Well and good that the states, counties, municipalities regulate cruelty to animals - it is in their perview. And the supreme court may acknowledge that all fifty states criminalize such behavior, but that does not make it a federal matter.
Controlling what is published is censorship. The individual had best guard his or her own eyes and ears against offenses, and may both protest and condemn outrages, but the government will be better served to keep out of that business.
I might understand if the British were a bit confused, not having a concise written document and all, but here we dare not rewrite ours just to enshrine every current sentiment that strikes the public mood.
In the founders' day, two things - first public cruelty would have been a matter for local control and interest by one's neighbors and peers, more a matter of one's character and reputation, perhaps of time in the gaol, fines, public expulsion, etc. Second, blood sports were very common in that day....
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
God bless America.
Complain about this comment
This is a not a good decision in a individual sense, but in another sense this decision reads like a plea to reintroduce this law, but to make it better defined so the priciple of it is aimed at willful animal cruelty. Is it not the point of SCOTUS (theoretically at least) to protect the principles of the constitution in this way?
This law was too broad. It could theoretically have been used against people producing hunting videos or probably even the odd video on You've Been Framed. All it would take would be someone in the right place with a chip on their shoulder. After all - Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be incarcerated.
If this law is reintroduced but more carefully defined, everyone will be better off.
Complain about this comment
28. At 04:46am on 21 Apr 2010, Fluidly Unsure wrote:
Talking about man and nature, is this an example of man being unnatural? What was the name of the elephant that got kicks out of stepping on, and crushing ducks? Aren't killer whales cruel to a wounded seal apparently for the fun of it? These are things I've only read about and don't know for sure so I'd like some feedback.
you make a good point there. the animal world is a cruel place, so cruelty perpetrated by humans is perfectly natural. our problem as a species is that we often claim to be above all that by being "civilised", yet totally contradict our claim by any means possible, including making videos of dogs fighting a pig.
If cruelty was the main concern then let's ban the NFL!
too right. the stop-start nature of American Football isn't conducive to making engrossing viewing, and is only as such to satisfy the TV network's addiction to advertising revenue.
Complain about this comment
#29 KScurmudgeon.
Any Constitution which has a Supreme Court recognizes from the beginning that the document is NOT perfect. The Founding fathers were not idiots !
A recent Supreme Court judgement equating business rights with citizens rights suggests a contradiction of your ´We the people ´argument.
-- or a misreading of the Constitution by the Supreme court.
Complain about this comment
Kiliing rabid dogs is a necessity.
Cosidering public health.
But perhaps this comment belongs to the previous thread.
Complain about this comment
4. At 7:44pm on 20 Apr 2010, frayedcat wrote:
"Oh, by the way Squirrel - better head for the hills some of these bloggers wear spiky shoes"
Point taken.
Squirrelpost:
The Red Squirrel Party is strongly advising its members and furry affiliates notto travel to the USA.
Any already there should avoid any humans especially those with bouffant hairdoes, high heels, skimpy clothing and video cameras and seek out the nearest friendly bear until they can be got safely across the Canadian border. The Alligator Alliance has offered its help in Florida, but has warned that it may take some time for the message to get around, so caution is advisable in approaching its more atavistic members.
We have been in contact with old friends who once ran the smuggling routes across to Sweden for Americans escaping conscription during the Vietnam war in the hope we can use their experience to get the hamsters and gerbils out to safe havens.* If your child's pet's cage suddenly empties overnight, we are sorry for the distress this may cause in the short term, but be assured that their pet will be well protected and feel much safer in its new location.
*Pet seals should for the time being avoid Canada, of course, and just go into hiding while we explore alternative routes and our feline naval friends get HMS Icefloe into position off the US northwest Pacific coast as a temporary measure.
For more information as the consequences of this decision become clearer, see [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
[end squirrelpost]
Complain about this comment
29. At 06:29am on 21 Apr 2010, KScurmudgeon wrote:
"Controlling what is published is censorship. The individual had best guard his or her own eyes and ears against offenses, and may both protest and condemn outrages, but the government will be better served to keep out of that business.
I might understand if the British were a bit confused, not having a concise written document and all, but here we dare not rewrite ours just to enshrine every current sentiment that strikes the public mood."
What strikes me that this decision appears to open up a very awkward contradiction. The depiction and distribution of an illegal event is allowable, though the very fact of its being filmed, in this case, means that those who are complicit in an illegal act in doing so are, seemingly, free from penalties.
That is not the same as secretly filming or reporting on an illegal act which you have no direct part or involvement in and did not instigate or could not prevent.
Obviously, there is a parallel with pornography: it would seem, by extension, there is a 'first amendment right' to film an illegal activity, and distribute it, as long as you don't participate. That may be OK legally, but it's questionable morally and ethically, isn't it?
Complain about this comment
35:
Squirrelpost:
The 'unsuitable/broken URL' wasn't a link, doesn't exist (yet) and was a joke.
But the Red Squirrel Party might well set up a 'Furry First Amendment Refugees' website after all now. 'Unsuitable', eh?
So that's what you get for trying to organise and campaign to protect small furry animals from the human jackboot of terror? Typical human-centric neo-Fascism if you want our opinion.
We don't care what barbarous and cruel practices some carnivorous animals get up to off their own bat out in the wild. That is no excuse for humans either to copy them or to appeal to their atavistic instincts.
Complain about this comment
5. Via-Media:
"I agree that this statute was too broad."
********************
This is the basis for the decision. In SCOTUS decisions, it usually comes down to one, specific point -- which is very often lost on the public.
Complain about this comment
Chief Justice Roberts rejected the government’s analogy to a more recent category of unprotected speech, child pornography, which the court in 1982 said deserved no First Amendment protection. Child pornography, the chief justice said, is “a special case” because the market for it is “intrinsically related to the underlying abuse.”
But isn't the same true in this case?
Yet:
“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.
Oh. Unless it's a 'special case'? This is simply illogical. If the second assertion is true, the first cannot be. Or vice-versa. Surely?
Complain about this comment
I think anybody who would actually watch one of these videos is mental. Veiwers of these videos are just about as sick as the people who made them.
Complain about this comment
Just as a sideline, it seems there's another Supreme Court case going on about 'sexting' and one does wonder how up with post-Gutenberg technology they are. (Some are getting on a bit aren't they? Not to be ageist or anything, but it seems one is 90.)
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. - who is known to write out his opinions in long hand with pen and paper instead of a computer - asked what the difference was “between email and a pager?”
Other justices’ questions showed that they probably don’t spend a lot of time texting and tweeting away from their iPhones either. At one point, Justice Anthony Kennedy asked what would happen if a text message was sent to an officer at the same time he was sending one to someone else. “Does it say: ‘Your call is important to us, and we will get back to you?’” Kennedy asked.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrangled a bit with the idea of a service provider. “You mean (the text) doesn’t go right to me?” he asked. Then he asked whether they can be printed out in hard copy.“Could Quon [the original defendant] print these spicy little conversations and send them to his buddies?” Scalia asked.
[Found at: http://lawyersusaonline.com/dcdicta/2010/04/19/technical-difficulties-at-the-supreme-court-2/]
But why are they bothering? If you can distribute vicious cruel dogfight videos, sexting's gotta be an easy First Amendment right too? Not that you'd want your wife or servants to see them of course. (Does anybody still have a pager btw?)
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
It's important to remember that the Court made a ruling on a matter of law, not on whether people have a right to watch animals suffer. The Court said the law as written was overly broad, that leaves the door open to writing a more carefeully crafted law banning films which exploit animal cruelty.
Isn't it odd that so many of us are revolted by cruelty to animals while at the same time films depicting humans suffering and dying in grueseome ways are a popular form of entertainment?
Complain about this comment
Squirrel (39),
Both good points, but there is still a difference between Child Abuse (an infringement of human rights) and Animal Cruelty.
You are right that the market drives both crimes, but what makes child pornography a special case is the human abuse involved. Profiting from human abuse is not a matter of expression of ideas.
Profiting from a violation of an individual's human rights is criminal.
Profiting from a depiction of violent acts upon an animal is ugly.
And -- the breadth of 'ugly' seems to have been the crux of the decision.
Complain about this comment
"Good intentions don't always result in good law" and this is what this appears to be, and the Judge vote was 8-1, so it seems pretty evident. My guess is that a law more specific in it's writing probably wouldn't even have gotten to the Supreme Court.
Besides, whom should really be prosecuted here, the people illegally fighting dogs, or the guy that happens to sell a video?
Complain about this comment
I've just found a useful little precedent to help the US Supreme Court out in other upcoming cases, which, ancient as some of them are, they still might not be expected to recall offhand. (It's about the heath of humans, not dogs or pigs though: 'An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen', 1798.)
(See the 'Steam going out of the Tea Party' thread for details.)
Complain about this comment
26. At 02:40am on 21 Apr 2010, Via-Media wrote:
"Sorry to disabuse you, but you've conflated and confused two entirely different topics- homosexuality is NOT the same as pedophilia. The vast majority of homosexuals of either gender have not the least attraction to children (something sadly which the Boy Scouts of America have yet to learn...)
Homosexuality is largely if not entirely genetic in origin. So abuse does not and cannot "cause" homosexuality."
Child molestation is certainly one cause of homosexuality. If a young child of a particular sex is molested by a member of their own sex, it can, and often does open the door to homosexual behavior. I didn't mean to give the impression that it was the only cause. You are correct when you write that there are many homosexuals who have no interest in children. There are many who know what happened to them was wrong and there are those who naturally became gay from other reasons. Scientists have discovered that the woman's body distributes less testosterone to each consecutive male child born. They have stated (I'm not entirely convinced, however) that the seventh consecutively born male will almost certainly be gay because of it.
In the case of the Catholics, many members accepted homosexuality as many of the Priests were themselves gay. Most of the other religions were not afflicted or effected by this condonement. Many Catholic parents knew what was happening and actually allowed it as some kind of divine offering to the Church. Remember, Catholics didn't speak out until there was money involved, for the most part. The Catholics, and others, who did speak out were handled harshly by the Church and effectively silenced. This could not have happened without help of the mostly Catholic Police force (state and local) here in New England. It goes all the way up to the F.B.I. too.
I agree that the Boy Scouts Of America have overreacted, but with all the law suites which could go their way, by taking a chance, I can not say that they are without total justification. How are they supposed to know when they hire a gay man whether he has been predisposed to molest or not? Would you take such a risk? How would YOU know? True, there have been many EXCELLANT gay boy scout leaders.
Finally, through my own research that was done back in the late 80s, I can honestly maintain that here in New England, at least, 90% of all male homosexuals are of the Catholic religion. In the Southern, mostly Baptist States, the incidences of homosexuality are obviously fewer as is reflected in the extremely low number of gay bars in those states. Baptists tend to push a naturally gay oriented son into a heterosexual relationship too while Catholics are more accepting. When you view the states which have a high number of gay bars, you can also see that those gay bars are in areas with a large percentage of Catholic residents. Also, the VAST majority of cases involving child molestation within the Protestant, Jewish, and Islamic religions are heterosexual. It does NOT make it any better when a girl is molested by a man either.
There are two or three other causes of homosexuality but, I don't wish to create a change in this forum's venue of cause.
I agree with you that there is a difference between pedophilia and homosexuality.
Complain about this comment
The answer is simple. NO
You don't need a surpreme court to determine if this is right or wrong, the answer is obvious. It just comes to show you how our American society tries to cater to every individual or group regardless of how outrageous they are. This country is turning into a dump and it makes me wonder if I'm still proud to be an American!
Complain about this comment
What struck me about this ruling was that Justice Alito was alone in dissent. The common perception of Alito is that he always joins Chief Justice Roberts. It's good to see evidence that he has a mind of his own.
Complain about this comment
44. At 5:05pm on 21 Apr 2010, AZsparrow wrote:
"Good intentions don't always result in good law" and this is what this appears to be, and the Judge vote was 8-1, so it seems pretty evident. My guess is that a law more specific in it's writing probably wouldn't even have gotten to the Supreme Court.
One is inclined to ask why it wasn't drafted better in the first place? I thought US legislators had umpteen aides and advisers and interns and what-have you? (Far more than ours do.) Don't they read these bills and think about them? Or was it one of those that got surrounded with all sorts of extraneous pork and other stuff they were all more interested in?
(Though, as I've already pointed out, I can't quite see why one law should be a 'special case' and another not when the moral and ethical element of the argument appears to be the same.)
Complain about this comment
43. Philly-Mom:
You're not quite using the same terms, though. It should be 'abuse of a human is illegal/criminal' against 'abuse of an animal is illegal/criminal."
Shouldn''t matter whether anyone profits from either; If the dissemination of one is wrong and unconstitutional in principle, why should the dissemination of the other not be?
(It's not, these days, an uncommon confusion in lawmaking. An awful lot of populist legislation--mostly to do with pornography or drugs the last few years--seems to concentrate on the criminalising of a recipient (for want of a better term) as much, or more, as on the perpetrator or the originator.)
Complain about this comment
who cares how broad the statue is no one comes near my lyra or theyll soon know al about it
Complain about this comment
All: This gets "fun" in a hurry. Time to separate issues:
a. The ACTS of dog fighting, "crushing", etc., are heinous; they should absolutely remain illegal. To Gavrielle's point (Post 18), I believe the producers, distributors, etc., of this stuff can and should be charged with hindering prosecution or conspiracy to commit the act. Prosecute them heavily; mandatory jail time should be the standard for the FIRST offense.
b. The presentation is becoming another matter, unfortunately.
Today it takes real animals and real children to create these monstrous video images. Since that's the case, possession of the material could probably be associated with a conspiracy to commit a criminal act, and the viewers could be prosecuted.
Modern technology, though, has now made it possible for us to create such films (animal torture, child pornography, etc.) without any actual animals or children being tortured or misused. What then? It's undoubtedly evil and will be punished by God, and should be denounced from every possible location, but if no actual torture took place, can it be banned? If so, why can that computer artifact be banned and some other computer artifact be protected? This is legal hair-splitting, perhaps, but our country has been very poor at managing exceptions to free-speech guarantees, and I don't trust their ability to manage exceptions here.
My take: Punish the acts NOW, and SEVERELY. The perpetrators should feel real pain, in my estimation, as well as going to jail (if they tortured an animal to death, or raped a child, they have earned pain, IMO). See if the law supports looping in the presentation material, and the producers and holders thereof, on a conspiracy charge, if the presentation material is found to have been created using live subjects.
Finally, the fact that we are having this discussion is another sad marker of just how degenerate our country has become.
The nice part about this, though, is that I can use my free speech rights under our Constitution to call out such behavior every chance I get, and to call it what it is: a complete missing-out of God's plan, with all the loss of blessings and reaping of pain that that entails.
That's the blessing of free speech. Forever may it continue. May we use it to encourage each other and support each other, even though we have differences of opinion, than to tear each other to pieces (which brings its own "rewards").
Regards,
Arclight
Complain about this comment
46.
(4MichaelHoffman)
I know I shouldn't, but that post of prejudices (cleverly dressed up in pseudo-science) I really can't let pass.
"Scientists have discovered that the woman's body distributes less testosterone to each consecutive male child born. They have stated (I'm not entirely convinced, however) that the seventh consecutively born male will almost certainly be gay."
I thought seventh sons of seventh sons got second sight, not gay? Or have the folklorists been hiding something from us?
"When you view the states which have a high number of gay bars, you can also see that those gay bars are in areas with a large percentage of Catholic residents."
Hmm. Amsterdam? (Not an American state, I grant you, but not a notably predominantly Catholic city either.) Being half Italian myself, although not Catholic, I looked up the number of gay bars in Rome, which I thought ought to be pretty numerous based on that 'research', but I could only find four. . .)
Complain about this comment
48. At 5:56pm on 21 Apr 2010, GH1618 wrote:
"What struck me about this ruling was that Justice Alito was alone in dissent."
I only saw it was 8-1. What were his grounds? I'd be very interested to know.
Complain about this comment
43. At 5:03pm on 21 Apr 2010, Philly-Mom wrote:
the breadth of 'ugly' seems to have been the crux of the decision.
All too true. Unfortunately, what the justices could not take into account is that cruelty to animals almost always leads to cruelty to human beings. It is a well documented fact that most serial killers (realized psychopaths) started out torturing and killing small, defenseless animals as children. They then moved on to other defenseless humans after they'd gotten in some "practice".
My point? It won't just be the sexually perverse buying these appalling videos. And how many of them will end up on YouTube, making it appear that such things can be considered "socially acceptable"? We've already seen what the "happy slapping" videos have done. What's next? Kill your neighbor's kitten and film it for kicks?
Complain about this comment
The article is a little bit ambiguous on one point and leaves me confused. Mr.Stevens was charged and then exonerated by SCOTUS just for producing the animal cruelty videos. Does this charge take into account any profit that he was making from the videos?
To watch an illegal activity on film, or even to broadcast it on youtube, is one thing, but, imho, to make money from distributing the video is entirely another matter.
Was this ruling upholding the right to view/distribute or to profit from distribution, or both?
Complain about this comment
Mark:
What the Supreme Court did regarding the decision on "watching/via video" dog fights is "insane" and, I am sadden with the Court for the abhorent decision....
(Dennis Junior)
Complain about this comment
52. At 6:45pm on 21 Apr 2010, arclightt wrote:
"Modern technology, though, has now made it possible for us to create such films (animal torture, child pornography, etc.) without any actual animals or children being tortured or misused. What then? "
That is a real problem because it must lead us into legal notions of intention and effect.
We've just hit this one head on in the UK with a rather resounding smash. There was a proposal to make computer-generated images (and artwork) disseminated over the internet subject to the same penalties and proscripions as certain kinds of live pornography.
As David Hockney pointed out, this would, however carefully drafted, mean that some art (quite a lot of naked cherubs and Ledas and the Swan and what-have-you, and quite possibly a few da Vinci drawings, apart from some of his own) could potentially be caught up in it. And efforts to define legally what the 'intention' of any visual representation, or its supposed 'effect' on the viewer might be have pretty well always ended in disaster.
(Might remind you of a certain John Ashcroft's draping of statues. . .)
It is really down to whether people can be trusted to distinguish the artificial from the real. If they cannot, that is a problem for education or psychology, not the law, I think. The common-sense approach would say that images, however realistic (3d holograms?) but entirely artificial should be simply left unrestricted to those who want to see them.
Though I doubt if that would actually stop some wanting to see real live dogfights or much worse for themselves, knowing human nature; but then current law should mostly deal with that.
'Crush videos', though, for god's sake. I thought I'd come across some weird things, but that?
Complain about this comment
53. At 7:10pm on 21 Apr 2010, squirrelist wrote:
46.
(4MichaelHoffman)
"I know I shouldn't, but that post of prejudices (cleverly dressed up in pseudo-science) I really can't let pass."
I wrote: "Scientists have discovered that the woman's body distributes less testosterone to each consecutive male child born. They have stated (I'm not entirely convinced, however) that the seventh consecutively born male will almost certainly be gay."
You wrote: "I thought seventh sons of seventh sons got second sight, not gay? Or have the folklorists been hiding something from us?"
I wrote: "When you view the states which have a high number of gay bars, you can also see that those gay bars are in areas with a large percentage of Catholic residents."
You wrote: "Hmm. Amsterdam? (Not an American state, I grant you, but not a notably predominantly Catholic city either.) Being half Italian myself, although not Catholic, I looked up the number of gay bars in Rome, which I thought ought to be pretty numerous based on that 'research', but I could only find four. . .)"
In 30 seconds, I was able to find 17 Gay bars in Rome. Thirteen came from the following web-site:
http://www.nighttours.com/rome/gayguide/drink.html
I was able to find 9 in Amsterdam.
You must keep in mind that most of Europe was HEAVILY affected by the Roman way of life through their invasions. That is why London has roughly the same number of gay bars as does Paris. If you venture farther North, however, where Roman influence was not so pronounced, you will see that the number goes down in countries such as Sweden and Norway. I'm sure that you will find the number of attendees will also be fewer. I was able to find 5 gay bars in all of Sweden. Remember, we only viewed the number of bars in Rome, without even viewing the other major cities.
Your response to my comment on the "7 child born gay" is non-sense. I'm sure you were just jesting, of course.
Complain about this comment
squirrelist (#54) "I only saw it was 8-1. What were his grounds? I'd be very interested to know."
I haven't read it yet, but recent opinions can be found easily at supremecourtus.gov. Look for "Latest Slip Opinions" and United States v. Stevens.
Complain about this comment
55. At 7:16pm on 21 Apr 2010, Gavrielle_LaPoste wrote:
"My point? It won't just be the sexually perverse buying these appalling videos. And how many of them will end up on YouTube, making it appear that such things can be considered "socially acceptable"? "
Very unlikely.
The whole point of this sort of stuff (and an important element in what's missing in the 'cruelty to animals leads to cruelty to humans' proposition, which I don't want to get into) is that the people watching the 'crush videos' (and some who watch these aniimal-baiting ones) are expecting a form of sexual satisfaction out of it. Mercifully, that is not a part of most people's makeup; or at least it is only a small proportion who actively seek it.
Many people, I think, imagine that much if this only developed in what you might term the 'video' or 'mass communication' age, but I once had access to psychiatric patients' records from before the ubiquity of film, let alone television or YouTube, and I can assure you it was no less prevalent then. It's just that people's grandparents never told them. . .Not unless the grandchildren were called Sacher-Masoch or Ellis, anyway, and possibly not even then. . .
A lot of children are cruel to animals, but adults are seldom actually very aware of it. The vast majority, fortunately, either shock themselves out of it or grow out if it. Or, perhaps, they hunt them later instead. I was always very suspicious about fox-hunting myself, and that had as much to do with what I learnt later about psychopathology as my earlier distaste for cruelty.
If the 'familiarity' thesis really held true, though, then you would expect a considerable increase in intentional homicides after the demobilisation of conscripts after both World Wars, and AFAIK that was not the case. It's much more a matter of psychopathy or sociopathy, and even those conditions are not predictors of single or multiple murders. Despite the number of thrillers that tend to rely on that. Not just thriller writers either: I know of one case where a 'profiler' led a police murder investigation in the UK wildly astray for more than a month through that kind of assumption.
Complain about this comment
To: #53. At 7:10pm on 21 Apr 2010, squirrelist.
You used the word: "Prejudice" when referring to my post.
I am not, by a long shot, anti-gay.
In fact, when I enter into ANY debate room (Yahoo) or forum, whether it be here, or C.N.N., or any of the others I go to, I always enter them as if I were on the moon looking down on planet Earth.
Why?
Because then I can debate without being loyal to any flag, religion, sex, political party, race, or any other type of "belonging". True, it can sometimes make for a rough debate, but, I feel it is worth it in the long run as I feel my comments are as truthful as I can get them. Verisimilitude is extremely important to me. Without it, nothing will ameliorate. It will just stagnate or get worse.
When I do make a compliment therefore, or a criticism, you can be rest assured it is genuinely unbiased.
Complain about this comment
4MH (#62) Appointing one's self "genuinely unbiased" carries no weight whatsoever. That is for others to judge. Choosing a screen name which appears to indicate support for a person known as a conspiracy theorist and holocaust denier rather than, for example, "ManInTheMoon" (which is how you describe yourself here) belies your claim of objectivity.
Complain about this comment
59. At 9:14pm on 21 Apr 2010, 4MichaelHoffman wrote:
"You must keep in mind that most of Europe was HEAVILY affected by the Roman way of life through their invasions. That is why London has roughly the same number of gay bars as does Paris."
Well, now I know the answer to "What did the Romans do for us?" They gave us gay bars! And I thought it was mostly roads.
It's certainly novel, I've never come across that before.
Most of the Romans left, btw, in 410AD and were superseded by Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Norse and Vikings, the latter from Scandinavia--my ancestry through my mum is actually Norse--and thereafter the Normans in 1066 who had no connection with the Kingdom of France, the capital of which was Paris. They were also by then Vikings, the Romans having been superseded by the Franks at the same time (from Northwest Germany and the Netherlands). None of them established any gay bars either, or if they did, they kept very quiet about them.
Now, if we'd been invaded by the Athenians or Spartans instead and they'd stuck with us, it might have been different. And perhaps we might not have waited until 1967 for homosexuality to become legal and gay bars to start opening. . .
Complain about this comment
63. At 11:11pm on 21 Apr 2010, GH1618 wrote:
"Choosing a screen name which appears to indicate support for a person known as a conspiracy theorist and holocaust denier"
Well, at least it's obvious. Makes life easier. Anyway, I'm delighted to read some really novel theories for a change.
(Does make you wonder; seems the original was a journo for Associated Press, which is rather disturbing. Mind you, never thought much of AP myself anyway.)
Complain about this comment
59. 4MichaelHoffman:
I got distracted by the gay Romans, can't think how. Just took my fancy, you might say. The prejudice I was really referring to was an apparent prejudice against Catholics.
Complain about this comment
63. At 11:11pm on 21 Apr 2010, GH1618 wrote:
"Choosing a screen name which appears to indicate support for a person known as a conspiracy theorist and holocaust denier rather than, for example, "ManInTheMoon" (which is how you describe yourself here) belies your claim of objectivity."
People who thought that the Catholic Church covered up molestations were once "conspiracy theorists" too, you know. Many still believe it true to this day. Were it not for those "conspiracy theorists", the molestations still would be occurring.
Michael Hoffman has NEVER said that the holocaust didn't occur. He, along with Bishop Williamson simply dispute the claims of the gas chambers as there is no evidence. Also, they both dispute that the number "six million" is accurate. Do they deny that the holocaust was tragic? No. Both agree that Hitler was an evil man who was responsible for the deaths of the Jews who did die. I do to.
There will always be people who strive for the truth. I am one of them. If people find that something is not true, it is up to them to provide the reason why they made that finding. These men, along with David Cole, have made some VERY strong arguments against what we were taught in school regarding the Holocaust.
How many Politicians do you know of even know what the truth is? How many Politicians can you name told the truth to get into office? YET, you believe in everything you read from their "approved" history books that we are taught from in school?
Does that make sense?
Please tell me how that makes sense.
Complain about this comment
The short news stories don't quite do justice to the law and the decision. The law only banned depictions of animal cruelty that had no socially redeeming value - no historical value, no educational value, no political value. It has been in effect for 10 years. The Humane Society has continued to produce documentaries, and so forth. It only applied to video of actual events - not animation, not written word. It was actually quite narrowly drafted already. The action seen in the video had to be defined as animal cruelty under the local laws either where it was filmed or where it was viewed. This is what the Court got caught up in - what if it was off-season hunting (which might have possibly fallen under some state's animal cruelty laws but which isn't really heinous), or killing a grouse that was protected under one state's laws but not another? It is because of these kinds of issues that the statute was deemed overbroad. In the dissent, Justice Alito (of all people) pointed out that this logic was ludicrous. By tying the ban to animal cruelty laws, it was only as broad as the animal cruelty laws were. Child pornography is exactly the right analogy.
Complain about this comment
64. At 11:15pm on 21 Apr 2010, squirrelist wrote:
"Well, now I know the answer to "What did the Romans do for us?" They gave us gay bars! And I thought it was mostly roads."
If you and a few others check your history, you will find that the Egyptians had roads first. I suppose it comes down to what you consider a road though. The Etruscans had sewers before the Romans too.
I'm not sure what your point is. The Romans most definitely left some of their culture with England as they stayed for hundreds of years. Many left is 410 A.D., yes, but many stayed as they felt that England was their home then and some actually liked the friendliness of the English over the domineering Romans back home. At the time Rome invaded England, homosexuality was very much acceptable in the Roman empire. Remember too, that the Churches which are now Anglican were once, for the most part, Catholic at one time. It is VERY reasonable, therefore, to assume that the same types of things which were occurring (regarding the children) in other parts of the world, were occurring in England too, at the time.
You mentioned that the Romans didn't "establish" gay bars in England. That may be but, they did have all kinds of (gay) bath houses dotted across the English landscape. By the way, most of Normandy was a kingdom within France under Clovis until it was conquered by William (To whom I am a direct descentant on my Mother's side of the family). My Father's side (Johnson) of the family was involved in the 1066 conquest. Also, on my Mother's side, the Eames were involved too.
It's strange because we are also direct descendants of Geoffrey Fulk who started the crusades too. Through him, we are descendants of David, first Prince of Wales, and Mary, who was the Grandaughter of Henry 1 of England. She was the daughter of Geoffrey Fulk, count of Anjou, and a sister of Henry II of England. Geoffrey Fulk (1113-1151), count of Anjou, King of Jerusalem, wore a sprig of broom ("Plantagenistic": The name is derived from the Latin planta "sprig" and genista "broom plant") in his bonnet hence the name Plantagenst borne by English sovereigns for more than 300 hundred years. Reigning from 1154 to 1485, the Plantagenet kings, in the main line of descent were: Henry II, Richard I, John, Henry III, Edward I, Edward II, Edward III, and Richard II. Through the house of Lancaster: Henry IV, Henry V, and Henry VI. Through the house of York: Edward IV, Edward V, and Richard III.
Enough with the family history though.
I stand by my original statements.
Complain about this comment
66. At 00:33am on 22 Apr 2010, squirrelist wrote:
59. 4MichaelHoffman:
You wrote: "I got distracted by the gay Romans, can't think how. Just took my fancy, you might say. The prejudice I was really referring to was an apparent prejudice against Catholics."
I am not "prejudice" against the Catholics.
I am MAD AS HELL that the majority of them who knew what what going on did NOTHING to stop it for so long. Many Catholics feel the same way too. I have a right to feel as I do. We have been personally affected by their short sightedness. When someone else's problem becomes MY problem, I have a right to be upset.
I do not hate the Catholics.
They have to live with what they allowed to happen.
I feel sorry for them as they will always be haunted by this.
People who try to mitigate what has happened are just as guilty, in my eyes, as those who did the actual molesting so please don't try to make me out to be the bad guy. It won't work.
It is impossible that it ever could.
Complain about this comment
46 4MichaelHoffman
In #26 I was asking for scientific evidence to back your claims that homosexuality leads to pedophilia, and that most homosexuals are Catholic. These are remarkable claims, and not based on any evidence-based tests of which I'm aware.
Anecdotal evidence from one's own observations do not constitute "evidence". In my personal experience, 80% of homosexuals are Protestant, and 20% atheistic. Does this mean it's true? No, of course not.
If you do have actual scientific studies that validate your claims, please provide them- I'd love to see this, because it overturns several decades of established science.
As far as your claims about the Romans and the spread of gay bathhouses (@70), I'd love to see your source material for this as well- my degree was in history and I studied classical and medieval Europe quite extensively. For most of their history, the Romans frowned upon homosexual conduct, and looked askance at the "effeminate" Greeks who accepted such things. And, the subsequent centuries of "manly culture" of the Middle Ages squelched any tolerance that might have survived in the former lands of the Empire. Germanic tribes, Christian hierarchy, and the Caliphate quickly eradicated any trace that might have survived the increasingly rigid state-supported religion of the late Empire.
Complain about this comment
69. At 01:53am on 22 Apr 2010, 4MichaelHoffman wrote:
I think you are confusing Roman Christianity with Roman Catholicism.
While there is evidence for some Christian worship in England after Constantine's conversion for the last 80 or so years of the Roman occupation, it was probably one of the forms later characterised as heretical, and paganism was anyway coexistent and almost certainly more popular. (Mithras seems to have been quite favoured in the north.) Britain had to be 'reconverted' two centuries after the Romans had gone; by which time the majority population were pagan Anglo-Saxons.
The 'Romans' in Britain anyway almost all came not from Rome, but from Gaul, what is now Northern Germany, the Rhineland, Belgium, Spain, North Africa and even some from Syria and Egypt. Many who were left behind as the legions withdrew emigrated to Britanny and Galicia. And how many of the Celtic British apart from the ruling elites were romanised at all, if any, is questionable; this was an occupied country, some were slaves, most carried on peasant occupations and farmed or traded as they always had done.
So, even if every Roman bathhouse actually was a gay men's haunt as though England was San Fransisco in the 1970's--and you really can't take some of Martial's epigrams as though they applied to all of them, or everyone who went to one any more than Armistead Maupin's stories represent everyone in California--your thesis is a bit flawed to start with . .
None of this has anything to do with dog fighting, however. But I've enjoyed the diversion while things went quiet. But I'd better stop here, I think.
Complain about this comment
71. At 03:03am on 22 Apr 2010, Via-Media wrote:
"In #26 I was asking for scientific evidence to back your claims that homosexuality leads to pedophilia, and that most homosexuals are Catholic. These are remarkable claims, and not based on any evidence-based tests of which I'm aware."
No where did I even remotely suggest that homosexuality lead to pedophilia. The Cardinal to the Vatican said that. I strongly disagree. I wrote that being molested by a member of ones own sex can lead to homosexuality as it opens the door to it. I also wrote that being molested can lead make a person predisposed to molest.
Please re-read what I wrote.
As far as denying that homosexuality was part of the Roman culture, I have to ask you this: What planet have you been living on?
This is common knowledge among ALL modern historians. Don't you watch the history channel or read books on ancient Rome? Their bath houses were full of homosexual paintings on the walls. In those bath houses, young boys were bought and sold for sex. Most of the early Roman Emperors were gay or at the very least bisexual. You have never seen Caligula? Not only were they gay, but they, for the most part, practiced activities of a sexual nature with the children!
Where have you been?
You also wrote: "For most of their history, the Romans frowned upon homosexual conduct, and looked askance at the "effeminate" Greeks who accepted such things."
That is simply NOT true. Don't you watch any of the specials on the History channel that deal with this stuff? e.g.:Sex in Ancient Rome or Sex in Ancient Egypt or Sex in the ancient world? Try watching the uncut version of Caligula sometime. I suppose you didn't see the special on Vesuvius either. They found paintings of pedophilia, homosexuality, prostitution, and slavery that was indicative of everyday life in ancient Rome.
I am STUNNED that there are people who are living who are not aware of these things. You must have just graduated from school. Another thing, the ancient Romans had a habit of taking their own sons into war with them so that they would have someone to have sex with. That was a practice that they picked up from the Greeks. It is common knowledge in some gay circles that Father/Son relationships were (and still are) common in the Italian/Greek culture. It is common knowledge among some historians too. Just a few weeks ago, I was watching LOGO. That's a Gay and Lesbian network here in the States. This show was about traveling to Greece. One of the hosts was telling how older men in ancient Greece had sex with younger boys and the male host inadvertently (I hope) blurted out: "I wish I was there".
I nearly fell out of my bed.
You MUST do more research before you criticize someone else's.
Complain about this comment
71. At 03:03am on 22 Apr 2010, Via-Media wrote:
"As far as your claims about the Romans and the spread of gay bathhouses (@70), I'd love to see your source material for this as well"
Must be Martial, I think.
Or Fellini's Satyricon?
Complain about this comment
72. At 04:30am on 22 Apr 2010, squirrelist wrote:
"you really can't take some of Martial's epigrams as though they applied to all of them, or everyone who went to one any more than Armistead Maupin's stories represent everyone in California--your thesis is a bit flawed to start with . ."
Even though it is most certain that not ALL Romans practiced homosexuality or pedophilia, the fact remains that it was accepted as the status quo of the day. That is NOT a "flawed" statement. It is a fact that has been backed up by historians who presented their findings on national T.V. I have heard zero complaints from the Italian community on any of the shows, which I have on tape, incidentally.
Complain about this comment
I think i have arrived at that gate that has 'Abandon hope all ye who enter here' over it.
Via-Media, it's all yours.
(I don't know if we get the History Channel here. And I hope these LOGO people don't get to update the Rough Guide to Greece--or Sparta--I can see there might be problems. . . )
Complain about this comment
i see how you are now squirrel...someone cites something they saw on the TV as 'research' and 'common knowledge to everyone who knows anything' and you quit...and just when i was getting interested in the red squirrel party too...
Complain about this comment
76 Squirrellist,
The History Channel is owned by the Discovery Network, a supposedly science- and fact-oriented group. Way back in the 1990s Discovery actually had programs dedicated to (gasp) science, and it was moderately entertaining if somewhat simplistic.
For at least the last 10 years, though, the entire network has been dumbed down and now panders sensationalist drivel. Specials on UFOs, ghost-hunting, cryptobiology... and the History Network is just as bad. They actually have serious (ahem) shows deliberating who would win a fight, a samurai or a viking...
That grain of salt better be a 10lb. block...
Complain about this comment
77 tin_man:
There is a point (particularly at that time in the morning) when one recognises that the horse is no longer capable of sustaining life. . .
Complain about this comment
re. 75. 4MichaelHoffman:
Even though it is most certain that not ALL Romans practiced homosexuality or pedophilia, the fact remains that it was accepted as the status quo of the day. That is NOT a "flawed" statement. It is a fact that has been backed up by historians who presented their findings on national T.V. I have heard zero complaints from the Italian community on any of the shows, which I have on tape, incidentally.
Michael, I have a couple of degrees in this area, and I can assure you that no matter how many TV shows you've watched, homosexuality and pedophilia were NOT the accepted status quo of the day in Roman society. The opinion of the Italian community nonwhithstanding.
Complain about this comment
I might want to add that when Vesuvious was uncovered, the Catholic Church tried to erase the images that were on the walls. They were successful at first, but later diggings were protected and they couldn't get to them before the new walls were photographed and documented.
It's very interesting that the cover-up actually went that far.
Complain about this comment
78. Via-Media:
Interesting. I'd rather not comment further, I think.
But that bit about Roman soldiers and their sons. . . My (admittedly not totally comprehensive) classical education seems to have unaccountably missed the ancient Roman editions of the National Enquirer. I'll never be able to read Martial or Catullus without a niggling feeling I'm missing the really scandalous stuff now.
Complain about this comment
80. At 11:31am on 22 Apr 2010, timohio wrote:
You haven't presented any evidence to the contrary. You just gave an opinion.
That, and $1.00 will buy me a cup of coffee. (If I drank coffee)
Complain about this comment
Here is text of the law overturned...can always submit a redraft suggestion to your representative
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000048----000-.html
Complain about this comment
82. At 11:59am on 22 Apr 2010, squirrelist wrote:
78. Via-Media:
You wrote: "Interesting. I'd rather not comment further, I think.
But that bit about Roman soldiers and their sons. . . My (admittedly not totally comprehensive) classical education seems to have unaccountably missed the ancient Roman editions of the National Enquirer. I'll never be able to read Martial or Catullus without a niggling feeling I'm missing the really scandalous stuff now."
Just so that you will know. If I were hiking in the Alaskan wilderness, hundreds of miles from the nearest hint of civilization, and the only outhouse had a the National Enquirer placed there as toilet paper, I'd burn it and go without before using such a piece of trash.
That was just for your information.
Complain about this comment
80. At 11:31am on 22 Apr 2010, timohio wrote:
"homosexuality and pedophilia were NOT the accepted status quo of the day in Roman society. The opinion of the Italian community notwhithstanding."
But where's your evidence? The very fact that Italians (I don't count, being only half) are silent and don't object means they consent, doesn't it? That proves Romans were, and still are, Catholic paedophiles!
Never liked Romans anyway, squirrel mutters. Nothing would surprise me about Romans. Look at the kind of painter they hired to do up the Sistine Chapel. Just goes to show, doesn't it? Disgusting. You wouldn't get us Tuscans like young Leonardo going in for that sort of thing. . . .er. . . .oh. . .umm. . .
Oops, sorry, I think I've caught a conspiratorial virus or something. I think I may be getting a bit confused.
This thread seems to be going to the dogs. (No, it's got away from them, hasn't it? I think I need a break, it's all getting too much.)
Complain about this comment
What did you people do? Stay up all night 'till I awoke this morning just to continue this debate? (...as I cover up my web cam with black tape and hear Michael Jackson's: "I always feel like some body's watching me" going through my head. Thinking of taking a long, hot bath, covering up key hole on bathroom door, thinking: Jeez, this is spooky, even for me...)
LOL
Complain about this comment
Squirrelpost:
Our spokeshuman regrets that he may have somehow started a hare and caused this thread to run off the track.
In the normal course of things we'd send him either on a retreat to a nice quiet monastery or to Bath for a few days, but unaccountably when we asked which he'd like he curled up in the corner and started crying. We can't quite work out why. Seems to be mumbling about Roman pedal cycles? Not sure if we caught that properly.
We hope he will recover in time for the next thread but two or three.
Complain about this comment
The impact would have been extemely broad based which is why the Supreme Court came in with the verdict. The repercussions would have affected more than just dog videos, hunting videos etc, but any areas where the content was not meeting a subjective measure of the local government.
The United States has more freedoms than many countries because of the Constition and bill of rights, some may look at them as the root of our flaws as well- but the first amendment is why all people can give thier opionion without fear of being shot in the street
Complain about this comment
To Paul # 89, I have to disagree. Hunting is not illegal but animal cruelty is. They are basically showing crimes being committed and hiding under the free speech umbrella. Why not just ban videos of illegal activity? Seems easy enough to me. What's next, videos of murder and rape?
Complain about this comment
89. At 1:22pm on 22 Apr 2010, paul wrote:
"The impact would have been extremely broad based which is why the Supreme Court came in with the verdict. The repercussions would have affected more than just dog videos, hunting videos etc, but any areas where the content was not meeting a subjective measure of the local government."
Paul,
In a way, I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling for the same reasons which you have mentioned. There should be, in my mind, however, some sort of cut-off point that everyone can agree on. It should make people sick to know now that even "snuff" films are now protected too.
What are "snuff" films?
"Snuff" films are films where a person is kidnapped, raped, tortured, and then finally murdered. They are then placed on the Internet, for sale, for the enjoyment of the seriously deranged.
The Supreme court just protected the viewing of them.
This is NOT what the Constitution was meant to protect.
Where should we draw the line?
#1). Child pornography
#2). Animal cruelty
#3). Human "snuff" films.
True, you might then counter with: What happens when someone wants to ban something else that seems cruel to one but not to another?
I think that should be dealt with on an individual basis.
Complain about this comment
squirrelist:
That was a nice piece of sarcasm. A little rich, but, well done none the less. You are certainly a credit to the sarcasm Gods.
The Romans built some magnificent structures. They produced some of the world's most utterly, amazingly, and peerless artists that have ever graced the planet. They built one of the most impressive empires that the world has ever known. Their know-how and expertise in the areas of architecture simply boggles the mind, even by today's standards. They have produced, and continue to produce, some of the most talented opera singers that the world has EVER known or will know. Their passion and zest for life is unparalleled in all of humanity. Their cooking has inspired millions of people and is enjoyed around the world. Most of the Romans were MASTERS, in the true sense of the word, in most of the endeavors which they committed to do.
Many of them were not without fault though.
I am NOT judging what they did back then as times were different. That would be horribly unfair.
If, however, we can look back at mistakes that were made back then so as to improve life for the present, then why should they be not included?
Am I harping on the Romans unfairly? No. They had a very well documented history which allows for more than a glimpse into the past though. That gives people a lot to work with when examining past events and day-to- day life in that part of the world. Many of the documents which exist of Roman life simply don't exist from many other cultures.
You must understand that.
I am completely aware too that Italians, in general, are not the best at taking any criticism. Two of my Aunts married Italians. I have Italian friends, so I know. Trying to debate about ancient Roman lifestyles with them is a delicate balancing act. They can get extremely upset and take everything so personal, that by the time you are finished, you get the idea that you just nuked their family home.
If you invite them over for a good spaghetti dinner though, all is forgiven.
(It's going to take all the spaghetti in Italy though if they read this forum.)
LOL
Complain about this comment
89. At 1:22pm on 22 Apr 2010, paul wrote:
"The impact would have been extemely broad based "
Well, I've read the judgement and the dissent by Alito. Although fairly quickly.
The argument appears to have been based on this, but bear in mind I'm not a lawyer:
1) there is no consistent definition of 'cruelty' among the states, and the act specifies an intent to be cruel, and also to 'wound or kill'. Apparently, there isn't agreement about humane killing of animals either: in some states, it seems, you can kill a chicken (but not necessarily any other animal) in any way you please, however cruel that might actually be.
2) the court argued that a 'depiction' of an illegal act is not the same as an illegal act; true enough, obviously a film scene of a burglary isn't as illegal as a real burglary. But the court seemed to argue that while there could be an exception in some cases, when the depiction involved complicity with the illegal act in order to produce it, like some pornography--and these 'crush videos', they brought in the element of sexual gratiification into that--animals did not present a serious enough case for one.
3) the 'intent to wound or kill' part they held, was also part of hunting: hunters intend to kill the animal, and that would potentially make film or photographs of hunting illegal. (This follows inevitably on from (1), of course, as soon as you decide that there isn't a satisfactory definition of what is cruel and what isn't.)
Doesn't help that apparently cock fighting is seemingly not illegal everywhere, unless I got that wrong.
There's a bit more to it, but that's the gist. They seemed to quote the NRA a lot. I'm not sure whether they picked up on the--to me--rather problematical fact that it criminalised not just the maker and distributor (for profit), which would seem reasonable, but the possessor as well. I'm not a lawyer, but it would also seem if you made and distributed this stuff but not for profit, that might have been legal. . .
The dissenting judgement by Alito, however, from what I can gather, more or less said the others were not taking the meaning of the act as a whole, but basically were picking it apart, and that the idea of what was cruel and deliberate for the purpose of making and distributing a depiction and was intended that way, was clear enough and didn't interfere with hunters' or chicken slaughterers' rights.
As anyone would guess from what I've written before, I think Alito was right, and the judgement itself was too narrow.
I can't help but think, one way and another, this is going to open up some awkward loopholes all over the place, though, unless people manage to get a coherent and more universal definition of what constitutes gratuitous, exploitative or deliberate cruelty to animals that all the states can agree on.
That, really, and stupidly trying to amplify it as wounding or death is where the drafting screwed up. Reminds me somehow of that other dodgy language that tried to define torture as only torture if people died of it. Funny that that was not expected to apply to non-human animals.
Whatever, it is now the constitutional right of every American to make, buy or watch any depiction however graphic of any animals tearing each other to shreds just to give humans a thrill.
(That last para is the Squirrels' view of course, as well.)
Complain about this comment
79. squirrelist
i was quite bleary eyed myself...i went to bed immediately after my post, feeling guilty about continuing the weird tangent the thread went on...perhaps it was the lack of nuts in my diet that led to my demise...:)
Complain about this comment
Re #90 "Hunting is not illegal but animal cruelty is. They are basically showing crimes being committed and hiding under the free speech umbrella."
Just as American pornographers staunchly defended by the Liberal Left. :)
Complain about this comment
91. At 3:28pm on 22 Apr 2010, 4MichaelHoffman wrote
The Supreme Court just protected snuff films. . .
No, it didn't actually; nor did it do the same with these 'crush' videos. They allow an exception when people are directly involved and it's for sexual gratification; just not when it's only animals.
Complain about this comment
50. squirrelist wrote RE Me (#43):
You're not quite using the same terms, though. It should be 'abuse of a human is illegal/criminal' against 'abuse of an animal is illegal/criminal."
Meh. That was actually my point.
Abuse of Children does not equal Abuse of Animals.
"Shouldn''t matter whether anyone profits from either; If the dissemination of one is wrong and unconstitutional in principle, why should the dissemination of the other not be?"
Because the offences are not the same. AND, because our Justices do not want to get caught defining the appropriateness of personal expression.
Remember - here in the states, making videos of people having sex in poo are sick... but it's legal so long as the actors are over 18 and consent to being filmed under such gross circumstances.
Also - we treat our animals very badly. Have you looked into our agri-business lately?
So - if the SCOTUS is going to start splitting hairs about editing our 'expressions', what's next? Are nude statues pornographic? Would they then limit federal funding to art schools that hire nude models?
Hey - I'm not about to stream pron for my sons of 'Men With Chickens'. But, why incarcerate the film producer? I'd rather he (only a guy would produce that. sry.) just go out of business and then do something else for a living. Besides, if the Chicken is adult and consents... ;-)
Complain about this comment
Maybe we actually need a verdict that requires us to clothe our pets?
Naked animals are an affront to pubic, ahem - i mean - public decency.
Haiku Time!
This is barking mad.
The thread's gone to the dogs when
FiFi needs a shirt.
____
Deer Squirrel -
Thank you for the summary (93). That sounds like what I've been hearing on the matter. I'm curious about the NRA language. Perhaps they are already mentally preparing for forthcoming cases?
(Rumor has it, there's a gun control case on the horizon. Care for popcorn?)
Complain about this comment
re. 83. At 12:03pm on 22 Apr 2010, 4MichaelHoffman wrote:
You haven't presented any evidence to the contrary.
That, and $1.00 will buy me a cup of coffee. (If I drank coffee)
You want me to sum up 20 years of graduate education (including dissertation research) in a blog post? I've spent a lot more effort than watching a couple of TV shows on this.
Complain about this comment
I have always had dogs as a pet and regard them as beautiful and loving creatures that enhance my life. I cannot imagine why any human being would deliberately harm a dog and would advocate a serious prison sentence for such depicable behaviour, whether it be acting cruelly to their own dog or for those engaging in organized dog fighting. A well-trained and loved dog is a wonderful companion and the trust that can be fostered between the two is a beautiful thing.
Pat Weyman
Complain about this comment
re. 92. 4MichaelHoffman:
You are aware, I hope, that between the third century A.D. and today there have been major population shifts in the Italian peninsula and that the average modern Italian has no more genetic or historical connection to the ancient Romans than the average person living in Britain or France? Italians just happen to live their lives surrounded by a lot of Roman stuff. But then, so does a Frenchman living in Provence.
In fact, historians and archaeologists studying Roman civilization are usually more specific when they discuss Roman society than blanket statements about "Romans". I specialized in the people living in the city of Rome in the late 1st century BC and early 1st century AD. Another person might deal with inhabitants of the Italian peninsula in the same period, who might not have considered themselves Roman at all. To the Roman state, after all, many of them were still considered allies rather than Romans. What is today northern Italy was in the 1st century BC called the "provincia," or province. It was inhabited by Celts. Still others might deal with the archaeology of the cities of Asia Minor in the second century A.D. The people living in those cities were ethnically Greek (mainly), spoke Greek, used coinage with Greek inscriptions, but were part of the Roman empire and certainly part of the Roman economy. Some of them (like Saint Paul) were even Roman citizens.
Really, you need to go deeper into this than a few TV shows before you start making generalizations about Roman society. It is a fascinating and complex topic that rewards deep study, but I've already bored people here enough and I won't go on.
Complain about this comment
Freedom of speech? Under the constitution?
This is a most ludicrous ruling.
The axiomatic truth is the actions contained within the case.
1) Cruelty to animals.
2) Incitement/training of animals to perform viciousness and to kill (surely an infringement of animal rights) and breaking the law by people.
3) To not uphold the illegality of cruelty to animals in any manner merely incites man to perpetuate low level and immoral behaviour. Is this what the constitution provides for in it's freedom of speech clause?
Equate cruelty to animals with hate speech and action - we're all part of the same world and it's to be respected that animals don't put pen to paper and write dotty rules that can't order and provide harmony for the entire world.
Shame on the supreme (lower case s for it) court for not providing a comment/recommendation to accompany this ruling. At least a request for the law to be changed.
Complain about this comment
re. 81. 4MichaelHoffman:
I might want to add that when Vesuvious was uncovered, the Catholic Church tried to erase the images that were on the walls.
Michael, Vesuvius was not uncovered. It was out there all the time, big as life, for everyone to see. What was uncovered were a number of cities, towns, and villas around Vesuvius.
And the "Catholic Church" did not try to erase the images on the walls of those cities. Many of them went into museum collections. Some of the ones with sexual imagery went into what was called the "secret collection" of the Museo Archeologico in Naples. But I believe the wall paintings in the brothel at Pompeii are still in situ. It's the only brothel I've visited, by the way.
Complain about this comment
98. At 5:25pm on 22 Apr 2010, Philly-Mom wrote:
Maybe we actually need a verdict that requires us to clothe our pets?
Naked animals are an affront to pubic, ahem - i mean - public decency.
Squirrelpost;
Look, our spokeshuman has had enough for today. So it's us that have to mention there is 'squirrelunderpants [dot] com':
"Are you sick and tired of squirrels running naked in the trees around your house? Have you had to hide your children’s eyes when a tiny furry streaker crosses the sidewalk in front of you? We’ve got the answer, Squirrel Underpants!"
Sigh. They are white Y-Fronts. White Y-fronts. Really, why would anyone imagine we'd wear those? No fashion sense at all, some humans. Anybody would think we were 90 year old chief justices or something.
Complain about this comment
99. At 5:43pm on 22 Apr 2010, timohio wrote:
You wrote: "re. 83. At 12:03pm on 22 Apr 2010, 4MichaelHoffman wrote:
You haven't presented any evidence to the contrary.
That, and $1.00 will buy me a cup of coffee. (If I drank coffee)
You want me to sum up 20 years of graduate education (including dissertation research) in a blog post? I've spent a lot more effort than watching a couple of TV shows on this."
Well, excuse me if I actually learned something from watching T.V. that you weren't aware of. The paintings on the walls were placed there centuries ago. They are embedded in the walls. I really don't know how you are going to get past that. Just so that you know though, there are many things that are not taught in school. Have you ever been to the Zeitgeist web-site? Those things are not part of the curriculum either, but, they are none the less true.
Also, I have read books on the subjects that I have posted that seem to corroborate what was presented on T.V.
Perhaps we should jail anyone who watches these T.V. shows as being heretics?
Would you like that?
Complain about this comment
So - there's this cafe in Istanbul that's in the cool of an underground cistern. Jazz plays softly and echoes across the water, and as you sip your coffee you can stroll across the platforms over the water and walk out to see Medusa's Head.
She was turned upside down and buried in the city's water storage system so that we would forget her. Heh heh. Funny.
You can run from opposing cultural ideas, but you cannot hide.
I also hear that there are some places in Europe where you can't wear a scarf on your head...
Complain about this comment
I am beginning to wonder if the Supreme Court is taking medication or drinking too much with some of their recent decisions. The decision regarding corporate contributions to elections is still kind of baffling. This one is even more poorly thought-out. If an activity is illegal, it shouldn't be promoted via video.
Complain about this comment
73 4michaelhoffman wrote
"You also wrote: "For most of their history, the Romans frowned upon homosexual conduct, and looked askance at the "effeminate" Greeks who accepted such things."
That is simply NOT true. Don't you watch any of the specials on the History channel that deal with this stuff?"
This is also for Squirrelist, Via-Media and anyone else on the Gay Roman thread.....
Actually Michael, what was written above IS true.
Despite the sensationalist spoutings of some TV documentaries, Roman attiudes to homosexuality were fairly conservative. Also bear in mind that we are dealing with more than 1000 years of history from foundation (c753BCE) to fall (476CE), and that most TV shows focus on the most sensational characters in history, which does not always give a real impression of how life was for the rest of the population. Imagine in 1000 years if all that was left of our culture was "Hello!" magazine and the party habits of rock stars. What would people think of us?
Anyway, here are some facts
1) in the Republic homosexuality was frowned upon, and was considered a sign of "Greek" decadence.
2) subserviant homosexuality was considered much worse than being the dominant partner - no Roman should be "catamite". Caesar was suspected of playing the unacceptable role for King Nicomides of Bythinia while a young man - a slur that his political enemies used against him (to little effect it must be said).
3) homosexual relations with slaves did not count, as slaves were not people but things. That said, in the republican period it was still frowned upon by society at large, although became more common towards the end of the republic.
4) Augustus instituted a marriage ban on serving legionnaries (various reasons - google it for more info) which remained in force until 3rd century. This undoubtedly lead to homosexual relationships of convenience, but not we understand to permenant partnerships.
5) in ancient Rome the word "Vir" meaning man (as in virile) had a specific meaning as a Roman man and therefore impenetrable (!). A roman freeborn youth was also off limits in all circumstances. However what a Roman Vir did to others (female/male, slave or foreigner) was his business ..... ie not illegal, but not necessarily to be accepted by everyone.
Homosexuality was not the norm, but it was practised by master on slave, by soldiers, and by decadent and powerful people in the imperial period. Strangely, it seems that the ancient Romans were much more tolerant then many people today.
Citing the actions of Caligula, Nero, Commodus etc does not in any way represent what was acceptable in Roman society .... after all if you spoke out against this sort of people you didn't last long. The Empire did get very decadent in its early years - read Suetonius, it really is quite shocking - but this did not reflect society at large. The Emperors and their court began to "orientalise" and take on the customs and habits of the Egyptian Pharaohs and the Persian rulers once they had conquered those areas.
Hadrian was perhaps the most shocking in that while in Egypt he took a permenant male lover called Antinous. When he drowned in the Nile Hadrian tried to have him deified (he also deified his mother-in-law!!!).
Although what all this had to do with dog-fighting I really can't fathom! I didn't have time to read back that far.....
Complain about this comment
97 philly-mom
"So - if the SCOTUS is going to start splitting hairs about editing our 'expressions', what's next? Are nude statues pornographic?"
I always thought that if it was more than 100 years old it was art not pornography ......
From the Naples Archeological Museum "Secret Chamber"....
http://www.google.it/imgres?imgurl=http://lh4.ggpht.com/_aICsAvJYgR0/RmGuyXiRrqI/AAAAAAAAATQ/3TSS3h6UPoQ/100_1084.jpg&imgrefurl=http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/HHKVTbgEW-0ELh6_V-78-Q&h=1200&w=1600&sz=15&tbnid=GMK7hr7FzBHQgM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsecret%2Broom%2Bnaples%2Bmuseum%2Bphotos&usg=__Rv9Ph6efiAsclGiJfJ90uFEvU6M=&ei=irPQS6GWIYzW-QbIsvAI&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=5&ct=image&ved=0CBEQ9QEwBA
Complain about this comment
Philly-mom wrote
"Are nude statues pornographic?"
My "referred" post 109 was along the lines of "if it's over 100 years old it is generally considered to be art not porn".
I then unwisely posted a link to a photo of a state from the secret chamber of the Naples Archeological Museum ..... of a satyr and a goat.
I didn't realise the mods actually look at all the links!
Complain about this comment
re. 105. At 7:38pm on 22 Apr 2010, 4MichaelHoffman wrote:
Well, excuse me if I actually learned something from watching T.V. that you weren't aware of.
Michael, I've watched documentaries being shot. It's like the old joke about laws and sausages. You don't want to watch; it will upset you.
The average TV documentary is ENTERTAINMENT. Sometimes some actual honest-to-God information creeps in, but the goal is to get you to stay there watching through the commercial, not to educate you. PBS is better, but it's sinking slowly.
Complain about this comment
101 timohio
Great comment - Rome is a vast and facinating subject (eternal?).
I applaud your choice of 1st century BCE / 1st century CE - all in all my favourite period of Roman history.
Complain about this comment
re. 108. RomeStu:
It sounds like you're doing more in Rome than drinking the espresso. Nice summary.
In addition to everything you wrote (which to the best of my knowledge is completely accurate), people have to remember that Roman histories and biographies were written by people (usually aristocrats) with a particular axe to grind. Their ancient readers (who would have been other aristocrats) would have understood that. Otherwise it's like expecting complete factual accuracy and objectivity from Glenn Beck. Oh wait, people do think Glenn Beck is factual and objective.
Complain about this comment
re. 112. RomeStu:
I applaud your choice of 1st century BCE / 1st century CE - all in all my favourite period of Roman history.
A fascinating period. Everything was changing, and everybody had to figure out his/her place in the new world that was emerging. I ended up being very interested in the status of liberti in the city of Rome. The usual take in contemporary sources is like the account of Trimalchio's dinner in the Satyricon. But the average libertus was more like an immigrant to the US in the early 20th century: eager to fit in and take his place in Roman society.
Complain about this comment
103. At 6:23pm on 22 Apr 2010, timohio wrote:
"And the "Catholic Church" did not try to erase the images on the walls of those cities. Many of them went into museum collections. Some of the ones with sexual imagery went into what was called the "secret collection" of the Museo Archeologico in Naples. But I believe the wall paintings in the brothel at Pompeii are still in situ. It's the only brothel I've visited, by the way."
That is something you will have to take up with the History Channel. On the program, they attributed the erased art as being the work of the Catholic Church. I am not disputing what you wrote on the other articles. I am talking about the art that was embedded into the walls as murals.
There are two corrections which I must make.
#1). When writing about Vesuvius, I was really meaning Pompeii.
#2). On the show which aired on LOGO, the host referred to the young boys having sex with older men as "Young men" and not "young boys" as I had written. Both expressions can be interchangeable but, since I used quotations, a correction was necessary.
RomeStu: Thank you for agreeing as you saw fit and for disagreeing as you saw fit. I maintain, however, my earlier assertions on the matter. I must disagree with you on one point though. Although you agreed that homosexuality was happening in the upper classes of the time, I would not be so sure as to exclude the lower classes too. Remember, the upper classes were using the lower classes for their sexual enjoyment. To assume that these boys didn't pass what was done to them onto others would be impossible to fathom.
Although I haven't visited Pompeii yet, I would love to sometime in the future.
Complain about this comment
RomeStu:
It would be nice to see the Flavian Colosseum dismantled and then reconstructed again to bring it up to its former glory. Now that certain relics of Greece are being updated, perhaps the people of Italy will some day see the need to do the same with the Colosseum. :)
Complain about this comment
You go away, thinking the discussion is about cruelty to animals, come back a day later and find that a spontaneous and very interesting discussion of Roman history has broken out ...
Great postings.
Complain about this comment
my opinion is that all this people banning dogfight are all jerk,what is the difference b/w dogfight,rodeo ,wrestling and boxing-its all madness-i will rather see dogfight than any other ones because there is no harm to humanbeing-while the others involve goddamn animals that cant feel,think or whatever
Complain about this comment
re. 115 and 116. 4MichaelHoffman:
On the wall paintings: They are murals. Same thing. They were first discovered in the 18th century accidentally when a well was dug at Castellamare di Stabia, near Pompeii. The first "archaeological" investigations were tunneling operations underground. As wall paintings/murals were discovered, they were cut out of the walls and brought up for collectors and museums. Only much later were there actual excavations as we know them.
On the Flavian amphitheater: rebuilding it might be a tad embarrassing. The missing parts were used to build Renaissance and Baroque Rome. There is a famous pasquinade: Quod non fecerunt barberi, fecerunt Barberini. "What the barbarians didn't do, the Barberini did". It refers to the Barberini family removing columns from the Pantheon in Rome. It was a common practice to use the ancient buildings in Rome as a quarry.
Honestly, I applaud your interest. But really, the Roman world and what happened to the city of Rome over the centuries is much more fascinating than anything the History Channel could broadcast. Did you know that the Romans invented shopping malls? Keep looking and reading. Just be wary of what you see on television.
Complain about this comment
119. At 03:16am on 23 Apr 2010, timohio wrote:
"On the Flavian amphitheater: rebuilding it might be a tad embarrassing. The missing parts were used to build Renaissance and Baroque Rome. There is a famous pasquinade: Quod non fecerunt barberi, fecerunt Barberini. "What the barbarians didn't do, the Barberini did". It refers to the Barberini family removing columns from the Pantheon in Rome. It was a common practice to use the ancient buildings in Rome as a quarry."
I am exceedingly aware of all of what you wrote. I am also exceedingly aware that the quarries from where the original materials came are still there too and can be made operational again. I would not tend to think it TOO "embarrassing" if they were used again.
You wrote:
"Honestly, I applaud your interest. But really, the Roman world and what happened to the city of Rome over the centuries is much more fascinating than anything the History Channel could broadcast. Did you know that the Romans invented shopping malls? Keep looking and reading. Just be wary of what you see on television."
Again, I am aware of all that you wrote. I used the History Channel as a reference in this case as it was the easiest and less time consuming, and at the same time, the most all-encompassing way to my point.
I do have a question for you. It was told on the History Channel that the murals were erased by the Catholic Church to prevent people from knowing the truth of the early day to day lives of the Romans. You say something different. The question, therefore, has to be this: Can you please direct me to the web-site or reference that shows where the murals are today?
Complain about this comment
People who enjoy cruelty to animals are obviously violently insane and should be removed from society.
Complain about this comment
MichaelHoffman
re this unusual idea of yours that the "church" destroyed frescoes at Pompei and Herculaneum to prevent people knowing the habits of the ancient Romans.....
You obviously will not let this bone go, so here's a fairly simplistic history lesson.
1) Pompei et al were rediscovered in the mid 1700s, when Naples was the capital of a seperate country called the Kingdom of Naples and Sicily (later known also as the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies). It's royal family were the Bourbons (as in pre-revolutioary France and modern Spain).
Although Catholic, the "church" had no control over the actions of the king, or over the excavations of the archeological sites.
2) Charles III of Naples took charge of the digs almost immediately to prevent the dispersal of the artifacts to the mainly northern European wealthy "Grand Tourists" who were eager to take home souvenirs.
This is the origin of the Naples "National" Archeological Museum.
3) By the 1700s even the catholic church had entered the "enlightenment" and was no longer seeking to destroy pagan relics.
However it must be said that although the church did destroy alot of pagan monuments in Rome during the papacy, various Popes also preserved monuments - by recycling them as Christian monuments (Trajan's Column, various Egyptian Obelisks, the Pantheon, the Curia, the temple of Antoninus and Faustina).
Most oft he destruction (blamed rather rudely on the barbarian Vandals) was in fact simply removal of good quality cut stone in order to build palaces and churches in the Renaissance and later.
4) Sadly many of the earliest finds in Pompei have been lost - mainly because they were destroyed accidentally while trying to remove them from the walls for sale or to put in museums, or because they were damaged by weather once excavated. The ruins of Pompei were the playground for local youths right up until the 1980s when security got a bit tighter.
Sadly Michael, your documentary has obviously taken one snippet of a historical theory and expanded it to become a generalisation - something a real historian would never do.
Also regarding the use of the phallus in art and decoration in ancient Rome - it was considered a good luck symbol and a symbol of potency. There is a famous stone with a relief of a large phallus and the words "Hic Habitat Felicitas" (here lives happiness) once taken to show a brothel, but now commonly taken to signify a happy marital household (copies of it have become a bit of a joke wedding present in more enlightened circles!).
It is true that the church as an organisation has had various periods of prudery (all the statues in the vatican with fake stone fig leaves) but your initial idea (if I understood you correctly), that somehow the debauched habits of ancient Romans continued in the church of Rome and thus have contributed to todays problems are pure rubbish.
When you make bizarre statements such as these, it is you who should cite evidence of your ideas, not including cod-history documentaries.
Complain about this comment
116. 4MichaelHoffman wrote:
"It would be nice to see the Flavian Colosseum dismantled and then reconstructed again to bring it up to its former glory. Now that certain relics of Greece are being updated, perhaps the people of Italy will some day see the need to do the same with the Colosseum. :)"
Michael - please don't think that I am trying to shut you out. Like TimOhio I applaud your interest in the history .... my problem is that so much "history" today is simply a facile and simplified version of the facts.
I'd love to know which Greek relics are being "updated". Restored, yes. Reconstructed, Never. They made that mistake with Knossos in Crete in the early 20th century, and have ruined it.
It is important to preserve what is left from the ancient world .... but to rebuild the Colosseum would be to create something new, and thus devalue the old. It is often necessary to shore up or support parts of old structures to make them safe and to prevent further degradation, but to rebuild, No No No. Let Disney or the people in Las Vegas do that!
Also, and again you are halfway there, it is not called the "Flavian Colosseum". The name the Romans used was "Flavian Amphitheatre" as it was an amphitheatre (from the Greek - 2 theatres , both semi-ovals, creating an oval shape) built by the Flavian Emperor Vespasian, and finished by his sons Titus and Domitian.
The name Colosseum comes from the nearby Colossus of Nero - a huge bronze staue of Nero - reconfigured after his "damnation" by Vespasian as the Sun God, complete with rays of light from head (looked like Statue of Liberty). The statue was as tall as the Amphitheatre and by the early middle ages had given it's name to the amphitheatre "ad colosseum".
Incidentally, for those who care, the Venerable Bede writing in the 8th century, wrote the words "When Falls the Colosseum, then falls Rome" about the Colossal Statue, not the amphiteatre.
The statue was gone by the 11th century - probably pulled down and melted for its bronze. Its stone base was destroyed in 1936 by Mussolini to make way for a new road!
All - please keep with the history, but use TV documentaries as a springboard to further research, not as hard facts. As Tim said earlier, their aim is primarily to entertain. Sadly much of history is not nearly as interesting as we would like it to be. (although equally much of it is far more interesting once you scratch the surface).
Complain about this comment
115 michael
"Remember, the upper classes were using the lower classes for their sexual enjoyment."
Michael, this is simply not true. The lower classes were Roman citizens too, even the plebians, and thus "inpenetrable". The catamites were slaves or foreigners, neither of whom had status under Roman law.
Complain about this comment
115 michael
"Although I haven't visited Pompeii yet, I would love to sometime in the future."
Yes, you must. It's fabulous.
But please remember to hire a reputable licensed local tour guide, and not rely on guide books and tv documentaries for your facts!!!!!
Complain about this comment
108. At 9:22pm on 22 Apr 2010, RomeStu wrote:
"Although what all this had to do with dog-fighting I really can't fathom! I didn't have time to read back that far....."
Nothing whatsoever. Nobody even mentioned Romulus and Remus. . .
Complain about this comment
The Supreme Court made a good call here. This is not a freedom of speech issue, although frankly I am surprised they didn't simply reject the case out of hand.
I do not endorse cruelty to animals, but that is already illegal and these videos are prima facia evidence of illegal activities. Still, you have all seen interviews with illegal aliens, people who are willfully engaged in illegal activity. You have seen films of heroine users, pot smokers, people drunk in public, public nudity and many other illegal activities. The film, whether documentary, instructive, or exploitative is merely an "artifact". The persons engaged in the illegal activity should be prosecuted.
Complain about this comment
Romestu:
I think this link might work better.
(Think it was the length that was the problem; but we'll see.)
Complain about this comment
119. At 03:16am on 23 Apr 2010, timohio wrote:
"Did you know that the Romans invented shopping malls?"
____________
This is really not my area, at all, but I thought shopping malls were invented by the Greeks. Isn't that the origin of the use of the word "Agora" not to mean people or crowd, but in the other meaning as in "I'm going to the agora to shop"?
Complain about this comment
Tim, Romestu, et al:
I suppose the Romans might have put on a dog v. pig fight in some of the cheaper games as a kind of warm-up for the plebeians? Don't recall it, must admit. Would have probably resulted in whatever cheapskate sponsored that being run out of the city, though, I should imagine.
Maybe that's something the legionnaires got up to in forts like Vindolanda to stem the boredom. Is there something about it in all those 'postcards' they found there along with the one that 'Send more socks, the weather's bloody awful up here'?
(Yes, I know, I realise it didn't say quite that. . .)
Not ones to bother much about animal cruelty, the Romans, really. Ancient Romans, I mean. They had pet cats, though, didn't they? They were said to have introduced them into Britannia, but that might be just a myth. If it isn't, I wonder if one's cat might be more receptive to obeying instructions about not clawing the furniture or harrrassing small birds in Latin? English certainly doesn't have much effect.
They also got into high-rise apartment blocks (Romans, I mean, not cats) but not, unfortunately, into enough building regulations to stop cowboy builders knocking them up so they fell down fairly frequently. (Who was it who wrote there was barely a day when his peaceful home life wasn't inrterrupted by a loud rumble and crash as yet another building collapsed?) You can blame them for what happened in Haiti: maybe some documentary on the History Channel will . . .
Complain about this comment
129. Interestedforeigner:
Oh dear. Is there a classical archaeologist in the house?
(Never one to be seen when you really need one, is there?)
Complain about this comment
re. 129. Interestedforeigner:
This is really not my area, at all, but I thought shopping malls were invented by the Greeks.
This is much more fun than talking about dog fights. The Greeks took spaces that were used as markets and surrounded them with buildings to create agoras. The first consciously-designed shopping mall was/were the Markets of Trajan in Rome. When the emperor Trajan created the Forum of Trajan, he wiped out a part of the Subura, a run-down residential district (slum, really), and literally leveled it so he had enough level space for his forum. That also wiped out the market area for the district. In compensation he built the Markets into the remaining hillside. It has all the elements of a modern shopping mall, right down to the food court. It's still there, you can walk around in it. I always put that in at the end of a course because I thought it was something that American teenagers could relate to.
Complain about this comment
re. 131. squirrelist:
Oh dear. Is there a classical archaeologist in the house?
Yup, there is.
Complain about this comment
re. 130. squirrelist:
They also got into high-rise apartment blocks (Romans, I mean, not cats) but not, unfortunately, into enough building regulations to stop cowboy builders knocking them up so they fell down fairly frequently.
Well, the cats probably got into the high-rise apartment blocks, too. Cats being the way they are.
If you get to Rome, take the train out to Ostia antica. It's the ancient port city of Rome. The apartment blocks are still there. People were living in them in the late 19th century when excavations started. It's a Roman city that you can walk around in, as big as Pompeii. But tourists don't know it exists. Do what the Italians do and take a lunch and make a day of it.
Complain about this comment
Well, at least this Supreme Court decision appears to make it legal for Google to display a visual depiction of cruelty to dragons involving horses today.
Though I remain a little uncertain whether any such depiction, since it also involves one male and one female human as well as a violent encounter between a dragon and a horse, might not fall under the prohibition of 'crush videos'? Perhaps that's why the Google pic is a bit tame: no incineration of humans or evisceration of dragons or anything. Would it be comprehended under 'hunting' perhaps? It is clearly 'distributed for profit' since obviously it is intended to attract surfers and Google is funded by advertising.
I really think this issue needs much more consideration by the Supreme Court. Its decision is clearly unsatisfactory.
Complain about this comment
121. the_Sluiceterer wrote:
"People who enjoy cruelty to animals are obviously violently insane and should be removed from society."
Is it cruel to cage a bird?
Is it cruel to keep a fish in a small bowl?
Is it cruel to keep an Orca in an aquarium?
Is it cruel to keep animals in zoos?
What about the mental health of these creatures? Should we now round up all the bird and fish owners and visitors to zoos and aquaria?
There are already plenty of laws against dog-fighting, bear-baiting etc etc. All we need is for them to be enforced.
The trouble with the videos of it are that in the internet age it is too hard to shut it out. To do so would inevitably censor valid sites as well.
No easy answers in the modern world.
Complain about this comment
129. Interestedforeigner wrote:
"timohio wrote: Did you know that the Romans invented shopping malls?
____________
This is really not my area, at all, but I thought shopping malls were invented by the Greeks. Isn't that the origin of the use of the word "Agora" not to mean people or crowd, but in the other meaning as in "I'm going to the agora to shop"?"
_________________________________________________
IF - my understanding is that the Ancient Greek word "agora" is the equivalent of the latin word "forum", meaning a central meeting place of a town, where business, political, commerical and judicial, was carried on.
What I believe Tim was refering to was the construction of the so-called "Trajan's Markets" in Rome next to the Forum of Trajan. This was a multi-story semi-circular complex of shops and offices, and to my knowledge is the first "shopping mall".
By the way, it is still visible by the forum, and has recently been restored and opened to the public. Go and see next time you're in Rome.
Complain about this comment
due to a time lag in moderation I see now that Tim has pre-empted my 137 in his 132.
And Tim - you're right - much more fun than dog-fights!
Complain about this comment
133. At 12:57pm on 23 Apr 2010, timohio wrote:
"Yup, there is."
Oh, apologies. Thought you were an historian.
So 'agoraphobia' is really 'a fear of crowded shopping malls'? I've always assumed that early Christians in Rome must necessarily have become ailurophobes, but it doesn't seem to have been transmitted through the genes. (Though Cherie Blair, a Catholic, didn't like cats, I recall, and I've a Catholic friend who's allergic to them, so maybe. . .I think I've got the germ of a History Channel documentary here.)
(This thread is getting very educational, isn't it?)
Complain about this comment
134. At 1:04pm on 23 Apr 2010, timohio wrote:
"If you get to Rome, take the train out to Ostia antica. . . The apartment blocks are still there."
Now that's the kind of holiday let I quite fancy.
Complain about this comment
131. Squirrel -
Yes. Quite.
_______________
132 Tim - Thanks for that. Most interesting really.
I hear rumours that this may be revisionist history, written by the (building permit) victors.
I hear that the real story is not that they were squatters in a slum, but rather that the builder had a brother-in-law on City Council. His cousin was a decommissioned Legionnaire who opened a sideline in tenant eviction. Apparently the local party boss and the municipal judge hearing the expropriation and zoning decision appeals both received villas near the beach soon afterward...
Complain about this comment
137. Thanks Stu.
That raises another point. I thought "agora" just meant anyplace where there might be a crowd, but "The Agora" was the markeplace, or mall, if you will, of Athens.
Similarly, we speak of the "forum", or "fora" to mean a place, or meeting place, or places. "The Forum" is usually taken as being associated with one particular place in Rome. (or, really, in Montreal, but that's different).
Complain about this comment
re. 139. squirrelist:
Oh, apologies. Thought you were an historian.
The historians may feel it's them you should apologize to :-)
Complain about this comment
142. At 2:39pm on 23 Apr 2010, Interestedforeigner wrote:"we speak of the "forum", or "fora""
No, it's 'forums'. Don't think 'forum' ever had a plural in Latin. Anyway, we've got a nice cosy little corner here, now the conspiracy theorist's gone off to conspire about banking elsewhere. Anybody got an amphorae of Falernian to hand?
(Only check the seal for heaven's sake. What they put into some of the fake stuff was disgusting. If it's got a red two-wheeled chariot on the label, don't touch it either! Probably really that dreadful muck they produce in that dead end province up north where it rains all the time.)
Speaking of which, shall I tell you about our 'Roman banquet' when I was a student? (Well, more of a light Roman brunch, really.) Either we got the fish pickle recipe badly wrong somehow, or that explains why the Romans vomited between courses. . .
Complain about this comment
re. 140. squirrelist:
"If you get to Rome, take the train out to Ostia antica. . . The apartment blocks are still there."
Now that's the kind of holiday let I quite fancy.
Let's see, actually I suppose it's the subway you take. In the Stazione Termini, go down one level below the trains to the ticket desk for the subway. Ask for a ticket to Ostia antico (Ostia scavi). Not Ostia Lido unless you fancy going to the beach. Biglietto andate e ritorno (two-way ticket). You take the train all the way out along the Tiber, get off at your stop and cross a footbridge, and you're in a Roman city. And you will practically have it to yourself, unless there's an Italian school group there.
Complain about this comment
re. 142. Interestedforeigner:
Well, Stu seems to be more of a classicist than me, but yes, you've got it right. The literal meaning of the Greek word "agora" is an assembly of people. There is a secondary meaning as a marketplace. Every ancient Greek city would have had an agora of some sort, even if it was just an open field where people could set up stalls. In the modern period we have used "The Agora" to refer to the agora in Athens.
Forum is likewise a meeting place. What we call "The Forum" is properly called the Forum Romanum. I'm not sure whether it had that name among the Romans themselves. Beginning with Julius Caesar, Roman emperors cleared space in the city and built their own fora near the Forum Romanum. They served all kinds of purposes: law courts, stock exchanges, meeting places, libraries, etc. Today the excavated ones look pretty bleak, but apparently planting beds for trees were excavated in the pavement of the forum of Trajan (he of the Markets), so they may have been green spaces as well.
As the Romans founded colonies, especially in western Europe, their city plans always included fora. Cities in the eastern half of the empire tended to follow Greek city planning conventions and would have more irregularly-shaped agoras.
Complain about this comment
Are you, as your handle implies, actually in RomeStu? If so, lucky man.
Complain about this comment
147 Tim
Nearly 10 years in Rome now and only 10 minutes on the scooter to the Colosseum.
Raining today though, so not safe for scooter driving on slick cobblestones!
Complain about this comment
144 squirrel
"Roman Banquet"
Was it as lavish as Trimalchio's Feast?
The Garum fish sauce is still a mystery to the modern taste buds ... either that or there is a missing secret ingredient (which would make it edible!).
There's a restaurant in Rome, which I've not yet tried, which serves dishes recreated from recipes taken from ancient texts - larks' tongues glazed in honey, that sort of thing. Really must get round to it, but the thought of everythng tasting of rotting fish is putting me off.
Incidentally, some sources talk of production of kosher garum (guaranteed no shellfish in the moldering mixture) for the Jewish community in Rome.
Complain about this comment
It's difficult to answer Mark's last question about balance since the U.S. Supreme Court is engaged in determining that as part of its mandate. But the making and watching of videos of dogs tearing each other to shreds for some people's monetary gains is sadistic, and reveals deep societal problems. One could compare that with people supposedly beating on each other in the latest styles of boxing as sport, but that appears to be mostly staged and even if someone is injured it is their choice to participate. As for activities in which animals are injured or injure each other, the animals have no choice - it is pure exploitation. Interestingly, bullfighting used to be shown on U.S. TV, but that seems to have disappeared, although it possibly may still be available on Spanish-language TV.
Complain about this comment
This is sick. People, what is wrong that you think this is a right and should be "protected?"
I am highly educated, an American, and definetly a democrat, quite liberal. But I absolutely can't believe people condone, and legalize, and then watch, the forms of abuse listed above. Child porn? Abuse. Snuff videos? Abuse. Animal videos? Abuse.
What is wrong with people? When are we going to realize that the call of citizenship is to serve the Constitution, rather than creating a Constitution that will serve those who feel they have a "right" to do whatever they so choose?!?
We should add "blind stupidity" and "selfish ignorance" to the Constitution too. That way we'd be covered.
Complain about this comment
Oh, and did we somehow magically forget that for the 'legal' videos of all kinds of sick abuses, and for the 'entitlement' to view them, someone had do go through the 'illegal' act of making them? And someone or something else (the attacked woman, the molested child, the animal, etc) had to endure that pain and deal with that for the rest of their lives?
Do we so value our own 'entitlements' and 'freedoms' that we would hurt others to obtain them? Are we desentisized, or just obtuse?
Complain about this comment
122. At 09:13am on 23 Apr 2010, RomeStu wrote:
MichaelHoffman
"re this unusual idea of yours that the "church" destroyed frescoes at Pompei and Herculaneum to prevent people knowing the habits of the ancient Romans....."
RomeStu: Take it up with the History Channel. I'm done with this subject as there are more important things to debate elsewhere.
As for restoring the Colosseum? That is a matter of opinion. To me, it is not "historical" to let something deteriorate to the point of eventual collapse. Italy has the means to restore it and bring it up to its former glory in the same way that the Greeks are doing with the Parthenon. They have found that it brings in the tourist dollars too. A completely restored Colosseum would do the same for Rome.
Were you against the stabilization of the leaning Tower of Pisa too?
Thankfully, you are not on their National Historic Sites Committee.
Complain about this comment
151. At 6:54pm on 23 Apr 2010, Kate wrote:
This is sick. People, what is wrong that you think this is a right and should be "protected?"
I am highly educated, an American, and definetly a democrat, quite liberal. But I absolutely can't believe people condone, and legalize, and then watch, the forms of abuse listed above. Child porn? Abuse. Snuff videos? Abuse. Animal videos? Abuse.
What is wrong with people? When are we going to realize that the call of citizenship is to serve the Constitution, rather than creating a Constitution that will serve those who feel they have a "right" to do whatever they so choose?!?
We should add "blind stupidity" and "selfish ignorance" to the Constitution too. That way we'd be covered.
____________
While we all find this stuff repugnant, suppose that the person who made the film belonged to PETA, or made it for the purpose of alerting the Police?
Would we then find the making of the film unacceptable? Would we find no freedom of speech to protect?
I am not comfortable, at all, with the court's ruling in this case, it does occur to me that it may not be as simple as it looks.
Complain about this comment
153 michaelhoffman
"As for restoring the Colosseum? That is a matter of opinion. To me, it is not "historical" to let something deteriorate to the point of eventual collapse."
You obviously didn't read what I wrote - I said that it is considered important to preserve the ancient monuments from further degradation, but not to rebuild them, which would be simply a modern copy, and of no historical value.
You continue
"Italy has the means to restore it and bring it up to its former glory in the same way that the Greeks are doing with the Parthenon."
You have obviously misunderstood the restoration of the Parthenon in Athens. They are not rebuilding it, but simply restoring it to its condition in 1687 when a huge gunpowder explosion (it was used as a munitions store by the ottoman turks) caused structural damage and blew many of the sculptures off the walls.
The restoration consists of stabilising the structure to prevent further damage and replacing the original blocks of marble which have survived within the restored structure.
This would not be possible with the Colosseum, as the stone which is missing is mainly to be found in St Peter's Basilica, the Palazzo della Cancelleria and other renaissance buildings.
You continue
"They have found that it brings in the tourist dollars too. A completely restored Colosseum would do the same for Rome."
Fortunately not all decisions in Europe are made on the basis of how much money they would bring in. Historical integrity is important too.
If you want "Classical World Disneyland" then I suggest you ask Disney or someone on Vegas to build you one.
You end with
"Thankfully, you are not on their National Historic Sites Committee."
I was thinkin the same about you.
Your arguments would stand up better if you had more information than a documentary or two can give you....
Complain about this comment
50. At 6:35pm on 21 Apr 2010, squirrelist wrote:
43. Philly-Mom:
{You're not quite using the same terms, though. It should be 'abuse of a human is illegal/criminal' against 'abuse of an animal is illegal/criminal."
Shouldn''t matter whether anyone profits from either; If the dissemination of one is wrong and unconstitutional in principle, why should the dissemination of the other not be?}
My dear arboreal, just consider what rabid [excuse the pun] vegans could do with a law or ruling that equates animals' rights and humans' rights. This law was the opening wedge of a plot by the International Vegan Conspiracy to make carnivorous activities a crime!
Carnivors of the world unite, you have only your broccoli to lose!
Complain about this comment
re. 153. At 7:31pm on 23 Apr 2010, 4MichaelHoffman wrote:
They have found that it brings in the tourist dollars too. A completely restored Colosseum would do the same for Rome.
Strange, I don't remember there being a lack of tourists in Rome. But I haven't been there in a while, so things could have changed.
Complain about this comment
142 IF
"Similarly, we speak of the "forum", or "fora" to mean a place, or meeting place, or places. "The Forum" is usually taken as being associated with one particular place in Rome."
Yes indeed, and while you're hooked on all things Roman, you might lke to know the origin of rostrum/rostra, meaning the stage from which an orator speaks, which traces its lineage back to the forum of Rome.
The latin word rostrum refers specifically to the iron beak or prow of an ancient warship, used for ramming and sinking the enemy ..... in 338BCE when Rome conquered Antium (modern Anzio - as in the WWII landings) and made it a colony. The Romans took the metal "rostra" of the captured ships as trophies and displayed them in the forum on the "Tribuna Rostrata" near the Curia/Senate. It was from this "rostrum" that the orators and lawyers, including the great Cicero, spoke.
Later on the first Emperor, Augustus, built a new temple to honour the newly-deified Julius Caesar and on the front of it he displayed the rostra captured from Mark Antony's fleet after the battle of Actium in 31BCE.
Those Romans did love their trophies and souvenirs.
Complain about this comment
So I trust these means child porn, snuff films and videos of rape are o.k. to buy sell and watch. After all humans are no more special then animals so if Crush videos and dog fight videos are O.k. the very least I would expect is the same treatment of humans to be just fine as well. After all those things are already illegal in all 50 states too but, hey just watching the video is not the same as committing the crime right??
As a matter of fact there should be no such thing as hate speech anymore either as that is an even flimsier, not only do people have the right to say whatever they want (free speech) but if they commit a crime while saying things that could be classified as such they are already committing a crime so what they say is meaningless.
Society is so backwards these days, we have already established that there are limits to Free Speech (shouting FIRE in a theater) and yet even when all segments of society can agree that something is wrong, disgusting and has no redeeming value we can not do anything about it as too many small groups scream, yell and threaten to get what they want. This has nothing at all to do with politics and I would be willing to bet if we had a real democratic type vote, referendum to the people, this would be overwhelmingly voted down and yet small special interests win again. Disgusting!
Complain about this comment
Interested Foreigner,
I agree with you. I do not think, necessairily, that it is cut and dry. There needs to be some sort of compromise so that some legitmate situations can be addressed.
However, I believe this post was more of a post about the legality of the stuff in general. Even abortion is allowed in certain cases with federal funding, but that is spelled out. There needs to be a limit on the 'reasons' these things can be made; unfortunately, many read the constitutional rights as "all or nothing" about what they feel they are entitled to and can't stand so - called "restrictions" on their "freedoms."
It is that dichotamy that the bill or law would need to address, and that is the one that people will complain endlessly about.
Complain about this comment
156 jmm
The vegan conspiracy is already in motion.....in the form of ethical rights for "non-human persons" such as dolphins and higher primates (no, not the Archbishops).
"Thomas White, professor of ethics at Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, who has written a series of academic studies suggesting dolphins should have rights, will speak at the same conference.
“The scientific research . . . suggests that dolphins are ‘non-human persons’ who qualify for moral standing as individuals,” he said."
source http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article6973994.ece
Complain about this comment
"People who thought that the Catholic Church covered up molestations were once "conspiracy theorists" too, you know. Many still believe it true to this day. Were it not for those "conspiracy theorists", the molestations still would be occurring.
Michael Hoffman has NEVER said that the holocaust didn't occur. He, along with Bishop Williamson simply dispute the claims of the gas chambers as there is no evidence. Also, they both dispute that the number "six million" is accurate. Do they deny that the holocaust was tragic? No. Both agree that Hitler was an evil man who was responsible for the deaths of the Jews who did die. I do to."
Eisenhower thought that making many US soldiers view the camps would prevent later denial of the truth. However, human nature being what it is, as the numbers of those who can testify to what they say with their own eyes decreases, and as the ability to fake the pictorial record increases [which is used to retroactively cast doubt on authentic period photos and films], the number of the deniers only increases.
My father and uncle saw for themselves, but would never talk about it [though I saw some photos my father had in the closet. I have seen photos and films of the liberated camps on TV since I was a kid. I have no doubt about the fact that the nazis killed many people.
Doubting the numbers [Germany] should not be a crime as we really don't know how many were killed and by which of several methods. To me, the medical experiments and vivisections were much worse.
Complain about this comment
• At 04:46am on 21 Apr 2010, Fluidly Unsure wrote:
A couple of my own observations:
1. Is human induced dog fighting any crueler than nature? Did anybody read Jack London's "White Fang"? Let's burn the book!
2. Talking about man and nature, is this an example of man being unnatural? What was the name of the elephant that got kicks out of stepping on, and crushing ducks? Aren't killer whales cruel to a wounded seal apparently for the fun of it? These are things I've only read about and don't know for sure so I'd like some feedback.
3. If cruelty was the main concern then let's ban the NFL!
While I agree with the sentiment of # 1 and 2, your 3rd point makes it seem as if you misunderstand the difference between violent and cruel. Football may be perceived as a violent sport what with large men throwing themselves into each other (notice I did not say hitting as that implies punching and the such) there is absolutely nothing cruel about football.
Complain about this comment
@ romestu--
Of course dolphins are not people.
But that does not excuse unnecessary abuse.
That's just...abusive.
Complain about this comment
Fluidly Unsure wrote:
"1. Is human induced dog fighting any crueler than nature? Did anybody read Jack London's "White Fang"? Let's burn the book!"
Yes, it is much crueler. In the wild animals mainly kill for food, although certain species have been known to also kill for pleasure.
Either way, when animals are put in an artificial environment to fight for the "pleasure" of the spectators, then it is evidently cruelty.
White Fang is a story, and the scenes of dog fighting in it reflect the attitudes of the time it was written, around 100 years ago. Today's attitudes (in the west) are very different, and therefore it is pretty spurious to cite this in your argument. Of course we shouldn't ban it - no animals died in order for the book to be written.
_____________________________
"2. Talking about man and nature, is this an example of man being unnatural? What was the name of the elephant that got kicks out of stepping on, and crushing ducks? Aren't killer whales cruel to a wounded seal apparently for the fun of it?"
I don't know about this elephant of yours - give us a link at least. However if it was a zoo elephant I don't blame it for being a bit mad.
As for the killer whales - that's nature in all it's brutality. It's life. Organised animal fighting is man-made, not natural. Why can't these wierdoes who watch animal fights get their rocks off to "Wildlife on One" or the Discovery Channel?
_________________________________________
"3. If cruelty was the main concern then let's ban the NFL!"
It's cruel to the spectators to make the last 5 minutes drag on and on and on and on and on with constant time outs and water breaks and then all change around because they can either attack or defend, but not both. Dull Dull Dull. Bring back rugby.
Complain about this comment
164 kate
I didn't say dolphins were people.
The article was about the idea that certain species of animals are sufficiently intelligent and have shown complex social interaction and learning. From this start comes the idea that perhaps they should be protected from exploitation, imprisonment and unnecessary death by the action of humans ..... the phrase was "rights for non-human persons", where "person" means a legal entity, not a human being.
Who knows, maybe they have a religion too, and maybe heaven is a big ocean with no dragnet fishing.
It's an ethical minefield ....
Complain about this comment
"3. If cruelty was the main concern then let's ban the NFL!"
"It's cruel to the spectators to make the last 5 minutes drag on and on and on and on and on with constant time outs and water breaks and then all change around because they can either attack or defend, but not both. Dull Dull Dull."
____________
Or shuffle shoes in the dirt; rub pine tar on hands, step into the batter's box, step out of the batter's box, adjust the uniform, tap the plate with the bat, shift weight from one foot to the other, rais the bat; watch the third base coach do a dance; watch the pitcher take off his hat, wipe his forehead, put his hat back on, scratch himself, shuffle some more dirt with his cleats, glance over at first base, glance back at the batter, fake a throw to first, look back at the batter, look at the catcher, shake his head "no", scratch himself again...
And you complain about NFL cruelty?
Where's a cattle prod when you need one?
Complain about this comment
167. At 00:16am on 24 Apr 2010, Interestedforeigner wrote a very witty essay on those boring American [played in more than just the US] sports. I tried to watch a cricket match once, now there is a cure for incomnia! Pardon me, IF, but Canadians have a contender for most boring, it's called curling [or perhaps not most boring, just most incomprehensible].
McJakome
Complain about this comment
So squirrelist believes, "No, it's 'forums'. Don't think 'forum' ever had a plural in Latin."
while timohio says, "As the Romans founded colonies, especially in western Europe, their city plans always included fora"
Do we have the beginnings of scholarly dissent here? I thought that the Romans would have declined forum as they declined bellum, giving you the fora plural. I also heard that Americans (timohio - do you count as one, or are you just stuck in OH temporarily) regarded the use of Latin plurals as unbelievably pretentious and therefore bad form (except for allumni - presumably pretension is permissible there).
Me, I think I would end up using fora as the plural of the Latin word for those things-which-were-used-for-whatever-it-is-forums/fora-were-used-for and forums as the plural of the new Internet word to describe places of discussion which I treat as an inheritance from Latin and not a genuine Latin word, and therefore subject to English rules (whereby imported words get the standard "s" suffix, rather than the do-as-they-do rule for foreign words.)
Like the question about "data" - Scientists and medics still treat data as a plural of datum, and say the data "are", whereas computer folk treat data as a collective noun and say the data "is".
English too is an interesting language.
Complain about this comment
168. At 01:30am on 24 Apr 2010, JMM wrote:
"Pardon me, IF, but Canadians have a contender for most boring, it's called curling [or perhaps not most boring, just most incomprehensible]."
___________
Next you'll be saying you don't care for kilts, and can't stand bagpipes.
Curling is a game of skill, cunning, and subtlety - and a most highly sociable activity, too.
Boring, indeed.
Complain about this comment
167. At 00:16am on 24 Apr 2010, Interestedforeigner wrote:
Or shuffle shoes in the dirt; rub pine tar on hands, step into the batter's box, step out of the batter's box, adjust the uniform, tap the plate with the bat, shift weight from one foot to the other, rais the bat; watch the third base coach do a dance; watch the pitcher take off his hat, wipe his forehead, put his hat back on, scratch himself, shuffle some more dirt with his cleats, glance over at first base, glance back at the batter, fake a throw to first, look back at the batter, look at the catcher, shake his head "no", scratch himself again.
Baseball isn't a sport. Baseball is theater.
Complain about this comment
Curling is not merely Canadian. There is a curling venue in St. Paul, Minnesota. Curling was a popular winter pastime among a certain group of computer people I knew when I lived there. It's probably more popular than snooker as a winter activity in the colder parts of the country.
Complain about this comment
re. 169. Northumbrian:
"...or are you just stuck in OH temporarily..."
Excuse me? One is not "stuck" in Ohio. One seeks out and eventually finds Ohio. Some, alas, never find their Ohio.
Seriously, though. Yes, I'm an American. I moved to Ohio because my wife got a job here and it was a reasonable commuting distance from my job in Detroit. But in spite of all the Ohio jokes I heard in Detroit and in spite of the annual Michigan/Ohio State football game which makes things a little tense, I like Ohio a lot. I just wish my part of Ohio had a few hills.
I'm sure Squirrel is joking. Every noun in Latin has a plural. But in the US no one knows what you're talking about if you use the Latin plural for forum. Except the people I work with, who are used to me.
Complain about this comment
Northumbrian (#169) "Do we have the beginnings of scholarly dissent here?"
This is what Bryan A. Garner writes in Garner's Modern American Usage (2nd ed. Oxford University Press, 2003):
"The preferred plural is forums, not fora. . . . But some writers, especially in political science and law, persist in using the pedantic fora."
The general rule, under Plurals, is:
"B. Borrowed Words. . . . Many imported words become thoroughly naturalized; if so, they take an English plural. But if a word of Latin and Greek origin is relatively rare in English--or if the foreign plural became established in English long ago--then it typically takes its foreign plural. . . . "
Garner, by the way, is a conservative on questions of usage, not an "anything goes" type; along the lines of a modern-day American Fowler. But he's practical, not pedantic.
Complain about this comment
Northumbrian (#169) " . . . whereas computer folk treat data as a collective noun and say the data "is"."
Depends. I'm "computer folk." When I am referring to a scientific study, such as when I referred to The New York Times poll on the Tea Party elsewhere is this forum, I use the scientific form, "data" being plural. Most computer people are not scientifically trained, however, so tend to use it only as singular.
Complain about this comment
151. At 6:54pm on 23 Apr 2010, Kate wrote:
This is sick. People, what is wrong that you think this is a right and should be "protected?"
What is wrong with people? When are we going to realize that the call of citizenship is to serve the Constitution, rather than creating a Constitution that will serve those who feel they have a "right" to do whatever they so choose?!?
We should add "blind stupidity" and "selfish ignorance" to the Constitution too. That way we'd be covered."
____________________________
I believe both 'blind stupidity' and 'selfish ignorance' are protected under the Constitution.
So are the rights to express them both, respectively. As well as the right to declare them for what they are when you see them.
As is the right to express the opinion that an act, a statement, or even a person's behavior is despicable.
And we all have the right to ignore or avoid the despicable, the blindly stupid, and the selfishly ignorant as well as the ignorantly selfish.
What is generally not tolerated is an attempt to correct despicable behavior, stupidity, ignorance or selfishness.
One does not judge with impunity.
KScurmudgeon
aint we grand?
Complain about this comment
170. At 02:15am on 24 Apr 2010, Interestedforeigner wrote:
168. At 01:30am on 24 Apr 2010, JMM wrote:
["Pardon me, IF, but Canadians have a contender for most boring, it's called curling [or perhaps not most boring, just most incomprehensible]."
___________
Next you'll be saying you don't care for kilts, and can't stand bagpipes.
Curling is a game of skill, cunning, and subtlety - and a most highly sociable activity, too.
Boring, indeed.]
To be absolutely frank, I also find baseball, soccer and football boring. I did find basketball homegames at Syracuse exciting [Go Orange!] However, I have a very jaundiced view of professional sports, professional politicians etc.
I guess any sport about which one know next to nothing seems pointless and/or boring.
As to bagpipes, I have a rather large collection of CD's [as well as moldy cassettes and more recent MP3's] including Canadian, Scottish, Irish, and Breton playing. I also am the possessor of a registered tartan, though I don't have a kilt.
As with sports, tastes differ. I was threatened with physical harm on a few occasions for playing my bagpipe music. I keep some in my car, so if someone is abusing my ears with overloud rap or hiphop [or anything else too loud] I can return the favor [or at least drown it out]. Pipe and drum music does a wonderful job of canelling almost anything else.
Complain about this comment
177. At 1:02pm on 24 Apr 2010, JMM wrote:
"I was threatened with physical harm on a few occasions for playing my bagpipe music."
"I keep some in my car, so if someone is abusing my ears with overloud rap or hiphop [or anything else too loud] I can return the favor"
Hmm. Was there some connection between the two?
I've been pondering cancelling out something similar lately myself--a neighbour has an extremely tedious and irritating drum machine--but I was thinking of playing some recordings I have of steam trains very, very loudly. (Thought it might have good shock value. And said neighbour is not yetaware that my hi-fi can go well beyond 11. . .
(It's also occurred to me to lend my flat to a professional percussionist friend of mine for practice sessions. . .He has some very, very, loud tom-toms. . .And I could do with a refresher course myself. . .)
Complain about this comment
7. At 7:52pm on 20 Apr 2010, MagicKirin wrote:
//
The only one I would paid for is to see the producer of these things thrown to the Pit Bulls
//
-Bravissimo! Now, if we could also find a way of seeing foxes tearing some riders to pieces then my televisual fantasies have been realized!
The only joy we have at the moment is seeing the odd bull goring those poncy matadors, but it's not enough to satisfy my bloodlust.
Complain about this comment
Getting back to dog fighting for a moment, aside from not understanding the people who want to watch dog fighting, I don't understand the people who want to keep pit bulls around the house. Pit bulls have acquired a certain dangerous reputation from having been used by drug dealers as guard dogs, and now a certain sort of young male thinks that keeping a pit bull makes them look tough. Where I live, every few years a child chasing a ball or something goes into a yard containing a pit bull and is horribly mauled or even killed. Why would anyone want to keep a dog like that?
Complain about this comment
re. 177. JMM:
Several years ago my family and I rented a cottage on a lake in northern Michigan for a vacation. Unbeknownst to us there was a bagpipe workshop being conducted at a camp on the other side of the lake several miles away. We didn't hear them during the day, but every evening a piper would apparently go out on a dock or something to play. It was quite nice because he would usually play something soulful and the music sort of floated down the lake as the sun was setting, but also quite amazing how far the sound would carry.
Complain about this comment
re. 174. GH1618:
. . . . But some writers, especially in political science and law, persist in using the pedantic fora."
Well, I guess that puts me in my place. It hurts to be associated with political scientists and lawyers, though.
Complain about this comment
180. At 4:48pm on 24 Apr 2010, timohio wrote:
It's a kind of macho alternative to having a big gun. Almost a kind of legal weapon, nothing less. A few occurences like that and we passed the Dangerous Dogs Act over here to make having the things illegal.
(There's a very secretive villa on the outskirts of the village in the South of France where I spend a lot of my time surrounded with high fences, steel shutters, cameras and security gates. And three bloody vicious loose Rotweilers until last winter, when they seem to have disappeared. Hope somebody poisoned the damn things. Bloody terrifying. We called it 'the Russian Mafia House'.)
Complain about this comment
re. #183. squirrelist:
A few occurences like that and we passed the Dangerous Dogs Act over here to make having the things illegal.
That sounds quite sensible to me, but I'm not sure legally where we would be in the US if a city or state tried to ban them. Certainly there would be a segment of the population that would object to government telling them what kind of dog they could have. And there are those who object to a particular breed being singled out.
Complain about this comment
181. At 4:55pm on 24 Apr 2010, timohio wrote:
re. 177. JMM:
"... but every evening a piper would apparently go out on a dock or something to play. It was quite nice because he would usually play something soulful and the music sort of floated down the lake as the sun was setting, but also quite amazing how far the sound would carry."
___________
Ahh, indeed.
Was there ever a sound so fine?
You know you're a Scot when the sound of the Pipes makes the hair stand up on the back of your neck.
My wife, (emphatically not of Scots ancestry), also thinks the pipes are best played at a distance, which, in her view means Vancouver.
Complain about this comment
@171, you say
"Baseball isn't a sport. Baseball is theater."
Any sport that is not theatre doesn't get television coverage, and dies for lack of funding ...
... with the exception of "blood sports": fishing, hunting and - of course - dog fighting, where people are prepared to pay enough to watch, or buy videos, to keep the "sport" going without national TV.
Complain about this comment
185. At 6:28pm on 24 Apr 2010, Interestedforeigner wrote:
"My wife, (emphatically not of Scots ancestry), also thinks the pipes are best played at a distance, which, in her view means Vancouver."
I agree :-D
(I suspect some Scots might too: I remember getting rather drunk on beer with whisky chasers in a pub near Loch Lomond, where the main purpose of the evening appeared to be to get so many rounds in the local piper was totally incapable of playing them in the carpark at closing time . . It was certainly successful the night I was there. All that happened was a kind of wheeze from one or the other--not sure which--and a kind of deflating air mattress sound. Followed by a round of whiskies on the house.)
Complain about this comment
186. At 6:56pm on 24 Apr 2010, Northumbrian wrote:
"... with the exception of "blood sports"..."
Which, of course, is a nice lead-in back to the previous discussion of Ancient Rome. We have difficulty with bull fights as a spectator sport. How about gladiators?
From the time of the Fall of Rome until well into the 19th century it seems to me that no major sporting venues were built for spectator sports in Western Europe (or anywhere else?) of comparable size to the Colosseum. It, however, seems to be comparable in size and seating capacity to current day covered stadia (for those who live in condominia?) or stadiums (for those who live in condominiums?).
Complain about this comment
re. 188. Interestedforeigner:
How about gladiators?
It's well outside my area of expertise, but I wonder if the fatality rate in gladiatorial combats was a high as Hollywood makes it out to be. The earliest gladiatorial combats were a form of human sacrifice held during funerals of important aristocrats, but by the period of the empire it was semi-regular entertainment and people made a career out of it. Some gladiators were as famous as sports stars today.
As far as amphitheaters, you have a big gap in spectator sports from the end of the Roman empire until, as you say, the 19th century. In the US I think it's the end of the 19th century. You need a certain percentage of the population to become sufficiently affluent to take the afternoon off work and pay for a ticket. Sports, of course, continued all through the Middle Ages and later, but I don't think spectator sports did.
Complain about this comment
184. timohio wrote:
"re. #183. squirrelist: A few occurences like that and we passed the Dangerous Dogs Act over here to make having the things illegal.
That sounds quite sensible to me, but I'm not sure legally where we would be in the US if a city or state tried to ban them. Certainly there would be a segment of the population that would object to government telling them what kind of dog they could have."
____________________________________________
One of the benefits of not having a written constitution is that under British law certain things can be banned by parliament because it is sensible - ie handguns and dangerous dogs, and no small but vocal (or wealthy) lobby groups can get in the way.
you continue
" And there are those who object to a particular breed being singled out."
What now ????
minority rights for "persecuted" dogs
affirmative action for pitbulls
defenseless gangstas resorting to labradors and spaniels for protection
Complain about this comment
186 northumbrian
"... with the exception of "blood sports": fishing, hunting and - of course - dog fighting, where people are prepared to pay enough to watch, or buy videos, to keep the "sport" going without national TV."
???? people are prepared to pay good money to watch videos of FISHING????
I'm off down to the lake with a rod and a web-cam ..... send money please.
Complain about this comment
re. 185. At 6:28pm on 24 Apr 2010, Interestedforeigner wrote:
You know you're a Scot when the sound of the Pipes makes the hair stand up on the back of your neck.
I must be only part Scottish, then.
My eye is frequently drawn to medieval pipes in musical instrument catalogues. The problems are that I doubt that I could find a teacher and I might find my neighbors out on the front lawn with pitchforks if I tried it.
Complain about this comment
188 IF
"How about gladiators?"
Funnily enough last Wednesday was the 2763rd anniversary of the foundation of Rome (yes, seriously) and for the last few years various historical re-enactment societies have been dressing up and parading around the Colosseum and Circus Maximus dressed as legionnaries, roman matrons, gladiators, senators etc etc.
There were over 1600 participants from all over Italy and also as far as Ireland and Romania.
After the parade they staged a 20 minute battle between 2 roman legions and a group of celts (Romans won) and then the Gladiator School of Rome staged a 30 minute display of gladiator fighting.
For photos see
http://video.tiscali.it/canali/Lifestyle/AP_Cultura/48319.html
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
These people take it really seriously, making all the costumes and armour the old-fashionned way and going for major historical realism (without the actual deaths).
Gladiators live on.....
For those who may find themselves in Rome in April next year, the parade is always on the sunday before 21st april, and is really badly publicised. I live here and work in tourism and only found out about it that morning ..... 1600 participants and barely 500 spectators!!!! But it's great, come along next year.
Complain about this comment
189 tim
"I wonder if the fatality rate in gladiatorial combats was a high as Hollywood makes it out to be. The earliest gladiatorial combats were a form of human sacrifice held during funerals of important aristocrats, but by the period of the empire it was semi-regular entertainment and people made a career out of it. Some gladiators were as famous as sports stars today."
You're right about the earliest gladiatorial combats - they were an Etruscan funeral tradition, adopted by the Romans and then turned into mass entertainment.
As for the death rate .... much lower than people think. It's estimated that around 20% of gladiators died. Main reason was that they were slaves (and therefore the property of someone) and also were highly trained (investment of money and time). At the end of a fight, when one has fallen to the ground, the other gladiator had to ask permission from the sponsor of the games (or emperor if present) to deal the death blow.
If the losing gladiator had fought well then he would usually be spared ... to fight (and entertain) again. It wasn't quite WWF, but was pretty well choreographed.
Who did die alot were convicted criminals, who were used as entertainment during the lunch period (animal hunts in the morning, executions at lunch, gladiators in the afternoon was the standard program) - convicts or prisoners of ward could be thrown to wild animals or made to fight each other for their freedom ... but they were not technically gladiators.
As for famous gladiators .... spot on. Many we know by name from mosaics and frescoes showing them. Hall of Fame, anyone?
Complain about this comment
Re bagpipes .....
at the risk of banging on about Rome, it seems fairly certain that the Romans used a type of bagpipe (among other sources Suetonius refers to Nero as playing a pipe and bag with his armpit).
It's unlikely that they invented it, and it possibly was originally a celtic instrument adopted by the romans as they conquered northern italy (Cisalpine Gaul - the celts came from central Europe, by way of northern italy, france, northern Spain and then Britain and Ireland).
Did the Romans introduce it to Britain and Ireland ? Who knows, but it's odd that it only survived in the celtic lands of Galicia, Brittany, Cornwall, Ireland and Scotland ..... so maybe it was celtic all along!
Complain about this comment
190. RomeStu:
You mean like "You get in my face, this chihuaha gonna see the insides of yp larynx"?
Umm. Videos of fishing. Thrilling. Almost as exciting as this series of 2 hour HD surroundsound DVDs I'm planning of gerbils sleeping.
(Just smeaked in out of the way, seems the squirrel-hunting season's in full swing up above. . .)
Complain about this comment
193:
Romans won did they? Blamed the absence of the scythed-wheel chariots on the airspace shutdown, I suppose?
Complain about this comment
197 squirrel
Another common misconception to debunk ..... these scythe-wheel chariots.
They were persian, not celtic .... but that statue of Boudicca on the Embankment has perpetuated a myth.....
Complain about this comment
195. At 10:32pm on 24 Apr 2010, RomeStu wrote:
"Did the Romans introduce it to Britain and Ireland ?"
We need Tim again.
Think they may have done, I can only remember Tacitus and Caesar mentioning blood-curdling screams and yells from the Gauls, Germanic tribes and Celts. Especially the Britons. Must have been the beer.
But it seems odd that if they did they didn't seem to surface again around Europe until the 13th/14th centuries. One of Chaucer's pilgrims played them; maybe they were just ordinary folk's instruments for the centuries inbetween,
Diodorus Siculus (?) said the Britons sang to something like a lyre; I seem to remember he thought it sounded rather tedious and boring. And I think someone mentioned trumpets (horns?) of some sort somewhere. Though if they had stringed instruments one would imagine they had flutes and drums of some sort as well at least.
(Honestly, why didn't the Romans pay a bit more attention? They were in Britain long enough, it's very irritating.)
Just had a look around, seems bagpipes originated in the Middle East (so that's why the Palestinian Police took to a pipe band--I always wondered about that) and the Thebans had something of the sort.
I always rather fancied a hurdy-gurdy.
Complain about this comment
198. At 11:07pm on 24 Apr 2010, RomeStu wrote:
"Another common misconception to debunk"
Sssh. I'm sure Boudicca could have done an arms deal on the quiet. . .
Complain about this comment
162. At 9:06pm on 23 Apr 2010, JMM wrote:
"Doubting the numbers [Germany] should not be a crime as we really don't know how many were killed and by which of several methods. To me, the medical experiments and vivisections were much worse."
I agree with you there. There is a website you can go to for more information. It is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXKHw0EZrqM
Complain about this comment
190. At 9:56pm on 24 Apr 2010, RomeStu wrote:
One of the benefits of not having a written constitution is that under British law certain things can be banned by parliament because it is sensible - i.e., handguns and dangerous dogs, and no small but vocal (or wealthy) lobby groups can get in the way.
____________
Well, so you might think.
We have a Westminster-style Parliament, but nonetheless we are within inches of abolishing (on the basis of a misleadingly labelelled "private member's bill" - a government bill disguise) a firearms registry that police use 7000 times a day, that the Chiefs of Police strongly endorse as a valuable crime fighting resource, and whose existence is supported by the overwhelming majority of voters.
Why?
Because the same kind of nonsense can be spread endlessly in the media here the same as in the US. A significant number of my countrymen now believe that we have a "constitutional right" to own firearms, and that the government really wants to confiscate our guns and make us all slaves.
Yes, we now have that same mindless nonsense here, too, despite our British based history and laws.
Complain about this comment
193. At 10:15pm on 24 Apr 2010, RomeStu wrote:
Ave.
On the fishing, yes, there was a weekly fishing show on the local CBS affiliate. Must have had good ratings, it was on for years. And then there was a show - the name "Merlin Perkins" comes to mind. Must Google it later.
At the time, it undoubtedly had higher ratings than hockey in the US, as did, and as far as I know still does, "Bowling for Dollars"
__________
Once upon a time there was a Gladiator display at the Royal Armouries in Leeds. It was a real hoot.
[The also had a falconry demonstration, a jousting demonstration, and an horse archery demonstration. Jousting was interesting, but horse archery was better and would be a good Olympic sport: high level of athletic ability, hand-and-eye skills, exciting television.]
It might be fun to see that parade. April is early for a Summer holiday, but maybe, just maybe...
Complain about this comment
RomeStu (#195) "Re bagpipes ..."
I heard long ago, from an Irish piper, that they originated in Greece. This link seems to support that theory:
http://www.bryce-mcculloch.com/bagpipes/History.htm
Complain about this comment
194. At 10:22pm on 24 Apr 2010, RomeStu wrote:
"As for famous gladiators .... spot on. Many we know by name from mosaics and frescoes showing them. Hall of Fame, anyone?"
____________
Continuing on this topic, and on the assumption that these sporting venues are only constructed in societies having significant urban populations in the service industries, and in which the working proletariat has sufficient physical security and disposable income to spend on sporting entertainment,
do we know what the prices of tickets were relative to incomes?
Complain about this comment
InterestedForeigner (#202) "Yes, we now have that same mindless nonsense here, too, despite our British based history and laws."
It is my understanding that the (new) UK Supreme Court has no power to invalidate acts of the Westminster Parliament. Is that also the case in Canada, or can the Canadian Supreme Court overrule Parliament?
Complain about this comment
205. At 02:02am on 25 Apr 2010, Interestedforeigner wrote:
"do we know what the prices of tickets were relative to incomes?"
They were free. Like the regular grain allowance to citizens, hence 'bread and circuses'.
Paid for by the Emperor, Consuls, Tribunes or any politician rich enough and wanting to make an impression.
Though I think the lower classes were only allowed into the earlier part of the really spectacular ones, just to see the animal-baiting warm-up acts, or chariot races, not the really good stuff like executions, barbarian slaughtering and gladiators, or full-scale battles, but I could be wrong about that.
Can't remember how you got a ticket though because there wasn't room for everybody, the population of Rome was enormous for the time, could have been half a million. So it must have been by lottery, I suppose. Maybe there was a black market. I'm guessing there must have been tickets, because I think all the entrances and rows at the Colosseum were lettered and numbered. Maybe it was first come first served.
The Senators and their families had all the posh seats reserved for them of course.
I'm pushing my classical history here, though. We'll have to ask Tim or Stu again.
Complain about this comment
205. Interestedforeigner:
I forgot. You have to remember Rome ran mostly on slaves. They were both proletariat and also the middle-class in some ways, even management, but they weren't citizens. No circuses for them.
If I remember correctly, I think even those citizens who had to work as artisans or small-scale merchants and traders and so on only actually needed to work for about a hundred days of the year. It was fundamentally a financial and service economy like Wall Street or the City, with most of the raw materials and a fair amount of the labour flooding in from the rest of the Empire free gratis and for nothing, except for the army salaries that kept it flowing.
It's why they wanted Britain, despite the inconvenience, some bolshie tribes and the weather; lots of gold, lead, tin and grain. They swiped the lot, pretty well.
The upper classes--the Equestrian order first and the Senators at the top--had to have a guaranteed amount of wealth, usually produced by farming outside Rome, so mostly disposable income wasn't a problem.
Though some did go bust or just couldn't afford to keep up with the expenses and had to beg to be reduced down to the plebeian rank again.
Complain about this comment
206. At 02:32am on 25 Apr 2010, GH1618 wrote:
"... Is that also the case in Canada, or can the Canadian Supreme Court overrule Parliament?"
____________
WARNING: This may be a bit dry, and lengthy, to some. Apologies. Gary asked.
"Overrule" is probably not the right word for it.
This is a bit tricky constitutionally. In 1982 it was a contentious issue, certainly at a theoretical level. For many years it seemed a purely theoretical issue, but it has come up recently, and the court has sidestepped it. I will try to explain.
I preface this comment by saying that I do not pretend to be a Constitutional scholar.
Canada has a mostly written Constitution. However, portions of the Canadian Constitution, as in Britain, remain unwritten. For example, the actual role of the Sovereign is one governed by "Constitutional Convention", yet it can be very uncertain what Constitutional Convention really is; the Prime Minister has the powers of an elected dictator, but the term "Prime Minister" never appears in the original BNA, and only once (?) in the Charter; the required level of consent of the Provinces to amendment of the Constitution was only spelled out in a court ruling, not in the statute.
A contentious issue in any country with a Westminster Parliament is whether any court can ever "overrule" Parliament. Under British Constitutional theory, Parliament is supreme, and Parliament consists of only, and exclusively, the Commons, The Lords, and the Sovereign.
In that sense, the idea that a court can "overrule" Parliament is pure heresy.
But, of course, as with so many things under English constitutional law it isn't as simple as it first appears.
------------
From 1867 to 1982 the statutory instrument governing the authority of governments in Canada was the British North America Act, an Act of the British Parliament. (In 1982 Parliament purported retroactively to change the name to "The Constitution Acts" of 1867 to 1982 - an episode equal parts George Orwell and Stephen Leacock).
Before that, whenever Canada wished to amend the BNA, it had to go to Westminster and have the British Parliament amend the Act. Some found this anomalous.
In 1982 at the request of the Government of Canada, the UK Parliament added the great legacy of Trudeau, The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and terminated the power of the British Parliament to act in respect of Canada.
The Parliament of Canada passed the same Act, and, on April 17, 1982 the Queen herself signed the Constitution on the lawn of Parliament Hill in front of the East Block. I was not so moved at the time, but reading the British Act this evening, a very short Act of four short sentences and two rather long Schedules (A in French, B in English) by which Canada became formally independent in law, well, it really was a huge event Constitutionally. God keep and save our good old Queen.
The Charter is analogous to the US Bill of Rights, and, given that Pierre Trudeau wrote the critical parts of it, has a distinct Jeffersonian influence.
There are three points.
First, and in part to avoid the issue of whether the courts can "overrule" Parliament, s. 33 of the Charter is a "notwithstanding" clause that allows the legislatures to opt out of the basic rights and freedoms set out in ss. 2 and 7 - 15 of the Charter.
There was a big fuss at the time. But it seems now very unlikely that s. 33 will ever be used outside Quebec. Like the old federal power of disallowance (the right of the Dominion government to disallow Provincial legislation, which is politically impossible to use), it continues to exist, in theory.
The Charter, and certainly ss. 2 and 7 - 15 thereof, is about the rights of the individual in the face of the power of the state. Prior to 1982 such rights existed primarily, though not exclusively, in the common law. (Canada's 1962 Bill of Rights was problematic.)
Second, before 1982 the critical sections of the BNA were ss. 91 (federal powers) and s 92 (provincial powers). The great majority of constitutional cases were not about whether Parliament or the Provincial legislatures had the constitutional authority to act. The term "Unconstitutional" was not typically used, but rather "ultra vires", i.e., outside the powers of the Legislature.
So in Constitutional cases the court was not acting as if it had greater power than Parliament, but merely ascertaining whether Parliament was acting within its authority. A distinction without a difference, perhaps, but hugely important constitutionally.
It has only been since the introduction of the Charter that people have used the word "Unconstitutional" more commonly, and almost always in the context of rights found in the Charter. The term "unconstitutional" though literally correct, and while used more often in the context of division of powers, probably still takes a back seat to "ultra vires". Charter cases are fairly common. Division of Powers cases used to be common, but hardly ever arise anymore.
Even in the Charter cases, the Court does not so much explicitly "overrule" Parliament as force it to comply with the requirement that no law have any force or effect that is inconsistent with the Charter.
This may seem to amount to the same thing as if there is any practical difference, but conceptually there is. It goes to the heart of Parliamentary Sovereignty. The Court finds that statutory or regulatory provisions, or state actions violate the Charter, and then the government amends those provisions or changes those actions. The court isn't challenging the authority of Parliament, it is merely doing the Court's job as legislated by Parliament itself.
The closest the Court has come to telling the government what to do involves a Canadian held at Guantanamo Bay. The court has expressed its clear displeasure, has indicated that the government's lack of action is not in accord with the Charter, and has done its best to embarrass the government for its callous disregard of the rights of this citizen.
[Of course, to the core supporters of this government, the fact that it runs rough-shod over civil rights is a cause for celebration.
To be fair, while the government is clearly wrong in law, at a political level, I believe the family may have obtained citizenship without being candid about the father's role as Osama bin Ladin's right hand man. Do you get to make a mockery of our immigration and citizenship laws, and then turn around and claim the benefit of the Charter? That seems pretty rich to me - and apparently to lots of others, too.]
The Court has stopped short of mandating steps the government must take. Quite apart from the practical wisdom of avoiding inserting itself in the politically charged subject matter, this seems (to me) wise of the Court because it avoids having a showdown with Parliament over Parliamentary Supremacy.
This is a fight that no Court, in a Parliamentary system, can ever win. To engage in the fight, at all, is for the Court to set itself up in opposition to the elected government, and thereby to undermine the authority of the Court as an institution subordinate to Parliament.
End of a long answer.
Complain about this comment
Human traffiking is not a constitutional right.
Molesting children is not a consititutional right.
Harming animals and the environment is not a consititutional right.
SUPREME SOVIET of the U.S.S.A has been infiltrated and socities worldwide are being b@stardized by these "world leaders".
Question Authority
Complain about this comment
Oh dear. Seems that British habit of 'taking the . . .' has got us into bother again. I must admit I thought the 'programme' for the Pope's visit was very funny. Why do we suspect it may have been dated April 1? I see the ;junior official' responsible has ben 'relegated to other duties'. Stocking up the condom machines in the loos, probably. Loos in Yurts in Outer Mongolia that is.
Complain about this comment
210. At 12:49pm on 25 Apr 2010, GoodbyeAtlantis wrote:
"Human trafficking is not a constitutional right.
Molesting children is not a constitutional right.
Harming animals and the environment is not a constitutional right.
SUPREME SOVIET of the U.S.S.A has been infiltrated and societies worldwide are being b@stardized by these "world leaders".
Question Authority"
Thank you so much! This is exactly what I spent a day trying to explain to some of the people in this forum. (I was 4MichaelHoffman) You are like a breath of fresh air.
Complain about this comment
Let them shoot the video. Then use it as evidence to prosecute those involved for animal cruelty.
Complain about this comment
re. 209. Interestedforeigner:
In practical application that's not so different from the role of our Supreme Court. The SC doesn't so much overrule Congress or the President as rule that certain laws or actions violate the Constitution.
Complain about this comment
214 Tim
No, for all practical purposes it isn't. But there is are certain Constitutional fictions that must be maintained at all times.
It's a big change though. The Charter made the Supreme Court of Canada a much more powerful arm of government than it had been previously.
Nonetheless, The SCC is still more deferential to Parliament than the USSC is to Congress. The Charter has also vastly increased the influence of USSC cases in Canada, as opposed to Eng CA and HL cases. The court now often reviews trends in the US, Europe, the UK and elsewhere in making its decisions, in an expansive way that it didn't do so much before.
----------
Some things don't change, though. When the court really thinks something is not merely unconstitutional but absolutely beyond the pale, the reasons still frequently include a phrase like:
"Parliament cannot possibly have intended ...."
... as if it is merely a matter of wayward interpretation.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@213 you say, "Let them shoot the video. Then use it as evidence to prosecute those involved for animal cruelty."
Unfortunately there is nothing to stop them shooting the video in places where the activity is either legal or at least tolerated (the Far East, for example). Then they can sell it on the web to anyone anywhere to buy. This is how videos of people being executed by the sword get made - it's SOP in Saudi.
Complain about this comment
I'm curious, do more dogs die from dog fighting than dogs dying from medical experiments or being euthanized in shelters? That pharma industry loves testing on dogs (esp. beagles) especially for eye medications. They kill the dog, and remove the eyes for necropsies.
Are more animals killed in filmed fightings than the millions and billions of animals killed per year to feed people, such as pigs, chickens, and cows? Film it, and suddenly it's wrong? Not the millions uncessarily killed, but filming it is suddenly a problem? Or if it isn't a problem, if we can kill dogs in a labatories, or kill dogs if it's expensive to feed them and nobody claims them, why is is suddenly a whole lot worse if a very small number get killed on film? Because they aren't "benefitting" medical science or they aren't costing someone a few dollars a day to keep them alive and hence need to be put down?
Every time you take a pharmaceutical product, think about the multiple rats, rabbits, dogs, cats, etc that were killed so you can use your eye drops... You're far more guilty than anyone who had dog fight, as the numbers called pale in comparison.
Complain about this comment
218. At 09:02am on 26 Apr 2010, steve wrote:
"I'm curious, do more dogs die from dog fighting than dogs dying from medical experiments or being euthanized in shelters? That pharma industry loves testing on dogs (esp. beagles) especially for eye medications. They kill the dog, and remove the eyes for necropsies."
Speaking for myself, and probably for the rest too, who are opposed to the legalization of watching dog fights, I can safely write that we are opposed to the things which you mention too. It is perfectly legal to film a cow or a pig which is being slaughtered as that is part of our food supply. Filming one that is being tortured is quite different. Watching dogs kill each other for sport is disgusting because it encourages similar behavior to be done. Why would you want to bring your dog up to kill anyway? With all the love that these animals give to us, unconditionally, isn't it sad that some want them abused in such a manner? Personally, I believe that each State should set aside about one hundred acres of land and so ALL cats and dogs which have been abandoned have a safe place to live out their lives. When you inculcate human emotions and human trust into ANY animal, it is barbaric to mistreat it as you are truly mistreating a part of yourself too.
Wisdom tells your that.
I hope you feel better now.
It is all a sickening mess.
Complain about this comment
re. 218. steve:
I'm curious, do more dogs die from dog fighting than dogs dying from medical experiments or being euthanized in shelters?
A big difference, of course, is that animals killed in medical experiments or euthanized in shelters are killed painlessly.
Although it's not something I like remembering, a very long time ago I worked in a medical school that used dogs from a local pound in procedures to train the med students. These were animals that otherwise would have been euthanized in the shelter. They were fed and cared for in the med school, anesthetized before being removed from the kennel area, and kept under anesthesia through the surgical procedure and killed by overdose of anesthesia at the end. They never regained consciousness. Many of these dogs were in rough shape by the time they reached the pound and didn't look well cared-for; I suspect that they were treated with more kindness and consideration after they were picked up by the animal wardens than before. Experimentation on animals should be kept to an absolute minimum, but it's important to remember that labs and medical schools adhere to professional standards and are subject to scrutiny by groups like the Humane Society. Dog fights are not.
Complain about this comment
re. 219. Worldcitizen1:
I believe that each State should set aside about one hundred acres of land and so ALL cats and dogs which have been abandoned have a safe place to live out their lives.
I understand the sentiment, but I'm trying to imagine how you would get the cats to stay on the 100 acres. And a large number of dogs kept together outside of kennel cages becomes a pack. That's just the way their doggy brains are wired. The best way to deal with unwanted animals is to not have them in the first place. If pet owners would spay and neuter dogs and cats, we wouldn't need to euthanize so many.
Complain about this comment
This article strikes me as interesting, in that emotion is incited by the object of the video.
It seems, after a quick read of the decision, that any other would not have been possible.
For those shocked by dog fighting, and all similar modern day horrors perpetrated against animals, one certainly needs to take a massive step back, and realize the issue is not modern, or American.
To fight it is to fight against a complete human history of cruelty and torture towards animals.
Our farming practices clearly show most of America does not give a toss about animals, really. We all say we do, and we hug our cats, and put tee-shirts on our dogs, and are angry when our pork roast costs more then $5.
Meanwhile, the intelligent pig is forced to live in conditions that horrify, and baby male chicks are killed by the millions for our eggs by either being fed into a massive grinder, alive, or several other methods. Jamie Oliver famously killed chicks, in a studio, in front of an audience sitting at dinner tables. He has, in fact, done several showing the truth involved in our food.
Other countries eat dogs. Here, we prize them as friends, and so cruelty towards them is difficult to watch.
The larger issue is the well-documented crime associated with pit fighting in America. It is well known that a dog fight is likely to hold many persons who are involved in other crime.
I don't believe cock or dog fighting is an incubator for crime, as others have suggested, but simply another outlet.
To outlaw video of the fighting would not only affect unintended targets, but is so irrelevant to the issue as to be distracting.
Have you ever seen a bullfight? It chills one to the bone, the machismo associated with this ancient horror calling itself a sport. The millions who enjoy that torture call the bull courageous. The bull is stupid, and acting on raw instinct. I suppose assigning a trait to an animal that cannot possibly possess it romanticizes it for those millions. In a more truthful view, it is repulsive in its torture of a living thing.
Animal cruelty laws are rather light in most states, and this just illustrates that the mass of America really couldn't give a damn about how animals are treated when it comes to enacting laws that would appropriately punish what may often be citizens with an inability to experience empathy for other living things, a strong warning sign of things to come.
As the moron football player. I can only feel rage as I see the sympathy for him as he apologizes for his actions, and pleads the error of his ways.
If you are over 7 years old, and find fun in watching animals tear each other to shreds, you don't suddenly see the light, and feel empathy where you felt none before. The dog's suffering doesn't suddenly become unacceptable to you. You cannot learn to feel empathy for suffering.
He fooled all of you with his crap, and, it shows once again that America couldn't give a crap about animals.
We love football, not animals. He was sorry, after all.
Forget the distraction of the decision, and take a look at the factory that produced your meat that you feed your children while you tell them not to be so rough with your dog, or spay and neutur your damn pets.
Even more on topic, how about getting serious about stopping pit fighting in America? Until real action is taking with real funds behind it, with laws that take the crime (and potential crimes) seriously, the issue of the films are hardly important.
Another rant could include the criminals we are creating as we raise children, and that, perhaps, is the most important one of all.
If we raise citizens who lack empathy, of course crime against people and dogs will persist. More important then the crimes, who are these people who are committing them, and how did they end up without the clear repulsion all of us, here, feel when we see these horrors?
Best to All,
Jen
Complain about this comment
221. At 03:19am on 27 Apr 2010, timohio wrote:
"I understand the sentiment, but I'm trying to imagine how you would get the cats to stay on the 100 acres. And a large number of dogs kept together outside of kennel cages becomes a pack. That's just the way their doggy brains are wired. The best way to deal with unwanted animals is to not have them in the first place. If pet owners would spay and neuter dogs and cats, we wouldn't need to euthanize so many."
I agree that the best way to deal with unwanted pets is through the neuter/spay programs.
Euthanization though is a TOTAL disgrace.
The rest of what you said could be worked out if enough people were committed to the idea. No previously held (I hate using the term "owned")pet deserves death just because it is no longer wanted. These animals were part of a human/animal bond. These animals picked up human traits and some people pick up theirs (lol). These animals were part of a family somewhere. At one time, they were loved and achieved the same status as a household's child. Thses animals know more than you can possibly understand.
Killing them is an assault on humanity itself. It is also a reflection of the conscience of society as a whole. It's just plain wrong.
Complain about this comment
re. 223. Worldcitizen1:
I'm very sympathetic with your point of view, but I think you are taking too optimistic a view of how often there is a human/animal bond. I'm sure you have had a caring relationship with the animals around you and I certainly did with the various animals that have been in my life, but many, many dogs and cats are lucky if they receive benign neglect from the humans around them. And those are the animals that end up in pounds and shelters. Quite often the animals in shelters are not adoptable because of the abuse they have suffered. There are truly sadistic people in the world, and a lot of them have pets.
Complain about this comment
224. At 5:46pm on 27 Apr 2010, timohio wrote:
"I'm very sympathetic with your point of view, but I think you are taking too optimistic a view of how often there is a human/animal bond."
That may be but, none the less, these animals deserve better than what they are now getting. Even if they were abused, that does mean that they should be euthanized. They are still living creatures with their own personalities and their own feelings.
Complain about this comment
224. At 5:46pm on 27 Apr 2010, timohio wrote:
"I'm very sympathetic with your point of view, but I think you are taking too optimistic a view of how often there is a human/animal bond."
I think you should go to your local Humane Society and take a walk down the hallways where the animals are crying and begging for anyone who walks by to rescue them as they KNOW what is coming IF they can't find a home.
I have no qualms with hunting and I've been to hunter's buffets, learned to shoot a rifle when I was young, and could easily go hunting, skin and bleed the deer or whatever else I shot and killed.
I can not go down the hallway at the humane society with out tears rolling down my face before getting out though.
You should try it sometime.
Complain about this comment
Some pets are better than others. I do not understand why people buy the vicious dogs, who sometimes get loose and kill children and older people. These vicious dogs should be banned.
If vicious dogs were banned in America, then many of these dog fights wouldn't even take place. The vicious dogs shouldn't even be here.
I do not feel sorry for the parents who buy or breed vicious dogs and then they or their kids get injured by the dog.
Its the same with giant snakes. I do not feel sorry for the parents or adults who buy or breed giant vicious snakes and then they get attacked.
I do feel sorry for the children and neighbors, however. Its not their fault their parents or neighbords have an attraction to things that could harm them.
Complain about this comment
Most persons find some form of animal cruelty entertaining and acceptable. Many who find it wholesome to share with their children the activity of hooking a fish and capturing it in a way that maximizes the violence and duration of its torture, get indignant about those who watch two dogs or roosters fighting. This makes it hard to outlaw one man's pleasure while preserving someone else's.
Complain about this comment
228. At 11:31pm on 29 Apr 2010, Ken wrote:
"Most persons find some form of animal cruelty entertaining and acceptable. Many who find it wholesome to share with their children the activity of hooking a fish and capturing it in a way that maximizes the violence and duration of its torture, get indignant about those who watch two dogs or roosters fighting."
Fish don't feel the hook as much as you think. It is actually less painful than having an ear pierced. When it is killed, it is done fast too. Having two dogs tear each other apart is a sad commentary on human civilization, or rather, the lack of. Some of these dogs get loose and kill humans. That is the difference.
Complain about this comment
I laugh at the supreme court's efforts to convince people that the constitution is anything more than toilet paper to the government.
Really, the U.S. government has proven the following time and time again:
*Republicans are in the pockets of big business
*Fear tactics are used commonly to gain votes by politicians
*The government will ignore the constitution whenever it's convenient for it.
*The supreme court will uphold the government's decisions to ignore the constitution unless they are likely to cause public unrest and/or uprisings (or they simply will not challenge the decisions)
*Human rights don't mean as much as the rights of businesses- Business provide the advertising funds to sway public opinion.
*We can take the popular vote away, replace it with a system meant to hide the fact that the people have no power, and repeat the process wherever possible.... and we'd best do it, because it'll keep us in control of the country (Yes, this is about the electoral college deciding everything about the country's future- nobody I've met actually knows how it works).
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS