I would have only one question to ask President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Elena Kagan: “Is it acceptable in our country to sell videos depicting deliberate forms of animal cruelty such as animal crushing?”
Our current Supreme Court recently ruled that prohibiting such videos might somehow interfere with our right to free speech. “Solicitor General Kagan, what is your position?”
The administration wanted to add such depictions of animal cruelty to the current list of prohibited forms of speech such as obscenity, defamation or incitement. The effort was directed at videos that show women killing animals by crushing them with their bare feet or high-heeled shoes while the poor puppy or cat screams in excruciating pain. But our Supreme Court seemed to be more concerned with “free speech” than the suffering of a small animal.
Our Supreme Court doesn’t need more lawyers or law professors who come from a sterile academic world, a world in which real life experiences are limited to classroom debating. Their dispassionate and haughty arguments are not founded in the real world, the main street world.
So I hope that someone asks Kagan the question, “How can a so-called civilized people call the sick entertainment of animal crushing free speech? And please give your answer in a way that we common folk can understand your reasoning, and more importantly our young children can understand it.”