Rhetorical Analysis of "Animal Cruelty and Free Speech"

Freedom of speech has become a highly debated topic in the United States. The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech. The amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. The 1st Amendment, particularly its protection of freedom of speech, is high valued by Americans. Freedom of Speech protects the rights of Americans to publicize their anything in which they want to make known to the public.

Freedom of Speech has been has been an important part of American Society and has been positive for the most part. However, there are times when it has had a very negative effect, allowing publications of very offensive material. One of these situations is discussed in an editorial called Animal Cruelty and Free Speech. This editorial was published in the New York Times. It focuses on a Supreme Court case involving dog fighting videos. According to the author, who is unnamed, a man named Robert Stevens ran a business called “Dogs of Velvet and Steel” which sold videos of pit bulls engaging in dogfights and attacking other animals. He did not take part in the attacks personally, but was charged under a federal law that makes it illegal to sell depictions of acts of animal cruelty that are illegal in the state where the depiction is sold. Stevenson appealed his conviction. After reviewing his case, The United States Court of Appeals reversed his conviction. The court declared that the federal law in which Mr. Stevenson was charged under was unconstitutional. The law violated his freedom of speech rights outlined in the First Amendment. The author explains that this is not the only deeply offensive speech that is protected by the First Amendment. The author says “Nazis are allowed to march and racists are allowed to spew racism. I imagine that people from the Nazi party are allowed to march, but I know for a fact that federal laws prevent racial discrimination. Of course law does not prevent people say racists things, but there are many cases in which the law does not allow for racial discrimination. People who hire employees certainly are not permitted to “spew racism” at them. Federal law does not allow employer to choose an employee based on their race. Therefore, it would not be legal for a interviewer to say “I am not going to hire you because of I do not like people of your race”. I made this point in order to prove that the author had made an incorrect statement. The author’s choice of words has damaged their credibility with the reader. Since the author’s name is not given in the editorial, I can see why he or she was lax about making sure his or her statements were credible. Since the reader does not know the author’s name, the author does not lose any respect from those who might know him.

In my opinion, anyone who is sick enough to sell or purchase these videos should be punished. The author shares my negative opinion in saying “some of this material is truly stomach-churning.” While I can imagine that dog-fighting might be a little gory, I still wonder how the author can know for sure that the material is “stomach-churning”. The author expresses no account of actually watching the videos. This leads me to question his or her authority to discuss dog-fighting. The author goes on to say “There are people who enjoy watching animals be tortured or killed”. While this statement may be true, the author gives no explanation of it which makes her statement less convincing and meaningful. The author should add a specific example of people that enjoy dog-fighting.

The editorial explains that there is also a market for “crush videos”. These videos feature women trampling small animals with their bare feet or in high heels. Supposedly, some viewers find these types of videos sexually arousing. I’m not sure how a video like this could be sexually arousing, but I guess there are some people with some really messed up thought. I’m not sure what provoked the author to add this statement to the editorial, but he or she claims that it was part of a federal government brief. While this may be a legit fact, the statement draws the reader’s away from the argument at hand and puts a completely different thought into their head. The author should have refrained from including this because it lowered the quality of his or her work. The author then provides the reader with another somewhat random statement, saying that “videos are also sold showing hog-dogfights in which dogs attack and sometimes kill pigs”. While this is highly interesting and informative, it is also a distraction from what the editorial is focused on. The author says that if legislatures were allowed to disapprove certain parts of unpopular speech, a lot of expression could become illegal. This is a very good point and gives the reader a clear image of why the author feels like freedom of speech should be protected. I have come to the same conclusion; freedom of speech is too complicated for the government to outlaw certain forms of it.

The lack of information the author provides about him or herself prevents the reader from gaining critical knowledge that would help them to trust certain statements in the editorial. The author also refers to very few sources. The only ones that the author credits his or her information to are the federal government and of course, the Constitution. These are generally reliable sources, but much of the information has come from other places, more than likely the author’s own thoughts. While the author does not provide good credibility for his or her editorial, a good point is made about how wide-ranging freedom of speech can be. I believe that freedom of speech is very important and that is a good thing for the most part.