Poll-ish Humor -- Sept. 29, Poll 3 (Liberal)

I LEAN LIBERAL

According to this recent story in The New York Times, the U.S. Supreme court has agreed to hear arguments about the constitutionality of a law making it illegal to traffic in materials depicting extreme cruelty to animals. The case involves the prosecution of a man who made an explicit film about dogfighting; most of the videos in the film were made in Japan, where dogfighting is legal. The movie shows footage of dogs being injured and in extraordinary pain. The man who took the pictures is not an anti-animal-cruelty crusader; he is a pit bull enthusiast, but he had nothing to do with the staging of the dogfights he filmed. He was sentenced to 37 months in prison.

The prosecution is based on a 1999 law outlawing the distribution of so-called "crush videos," sex-fetish films in which women (usually) in high heels crush small animals (mice, hamsters, etc.) to death.

What do you think of a law making it a crime to own or distribute videos of cruelty to animals? (Choose the best answer.)

I think it's not a good idea. It seems like a violation of free speech.

I think it's not a good idea. It may or may not be a violation of free speech, but there is a disturbing slippery slope here involving creating "thought crimes."

I think it is a good idea, mostly because this is disgusting material that should be illegal.

I think it’s a good idea, mostly because making these videos is contributing to a market to abuse animals in this way.

If the Supreme Court upholds the 1999 law, it would be only the second time in the last 50 years that the United States has designated a category of expression as so vile that it deserves no protection under the First Amendment. The last time the court did that was in 1982; the subject was child pornography.

Do you think it makes sense to outlaw the possession of child pornography? (Choose the best answer.)

I think it's not a good idea. It seems like a violation of free speech.

I think it's not a good idea. It may not be a violation of free speech, but there is a disturbing slippery slope here involving creating "thought crimes."

I think it is a good idea, mostly because this is disgusting material that should be illegal.

I think it’s a good idea, mostly because making these videos is contributing to a market to abuse children in this way.

Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland yesterday on 1970s-era charge of statutory rape, for having drugged and had sex with a 13-year-old girl. We're presuming you know all about this case, but just in case you need it, here's the skinny.

Do you think sending Polanski to jail now is a good idea? (Choose the best answer.)

Yes. The severity of the crime demands it.

Yes, both because the severity of the crime demands it and because it needs to be clear that fleeing jail is not a good idea.

No. He's been forgiven by his victim; it's been 30 years; he's no danger to others; there's just no practical point to a jail sentence now.

No, for the above reasons and others.

If it were established to your satisfaction that harsher toilet paper is substantially better for the environment, would you be in favor of laws prohibiting the manufacture of the really soft toilet paper we’re accustomed to?

Yes