Gamefowl News Sat 04 Sep 2004

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

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.

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

 

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Freedom of speech, of the press, of association, of assembly and petition -- this set of guarantees, protected by the First Amendment, comprises what we refer to as freedom of expression. The Supreme Court has written that this freedom is "the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom." Without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would wither and die.

But in spite of its "preferred position" in our constitutional hierarchy, the nation's commitment to freedom of expression has been tested over and over again. Especially during times of national stress, like war abroad or social upheaval at home, people exercising their First Amendment rights have been censored, fined, even jailed. Those with unpopular political ideas have always borne the brunt of government repression. It was during WWI -- hardly ancient history -- that a person could be jailed just for giving out anti-war leaflets. Out of those early cases, modern First Amendment law evolved. Many struggles and many cases later, ours is the most speech-protective country in the world.

<snip>

WHAT DOES "PROTECTED SPEECH" INCLUDE?

First Amendment protection is not limited to "pure speech" -- books, newspapers, leaflets, and rallies. It also protects "symbolic speech" -- nonverbal expression whose purpose is to communicate ideas. In its 1969 decision in Tinker v. Des Moines, the Court recognized the right of public school students to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. In 1989 (Texas v. Johnson) and again in 1990 (U.S. v. Eichman), the Court struck down government bans on "flag desecration." Other examples of protected symbolic speech include works of art, T-shirt slogans, political buttons, music lyrics and theatrical performances.

Government can limit some protected speech by imposing "time, place and manner" restrictions. This is most commonly done by requiring permits for meetings, rallies and demonstrations. But a permit cannot be unreasonably withheld, nor can it be denied based on content of the speech. That would be what is called viewpoint discrimination -- and that is unconstitutional.

When a protest crosses the line from speech to action, the government can intervene more aggressively. Political protesters have the right to picket, to distribute literature, to chant and to engage passersby in debate. But they do not have the right to block building entrances or to physically harass people.

<snip>

UNPROTECTED EXPRESSION

The Supreme Court has recognized several limited exceptions to First Amendment protection.

  • In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Court held that so-called "fighting words ... which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace," are not protected. This decision was based on the fact that fighting words are of "slight social value as a step to truth."
  • In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Court held that defamatory falsehoods about public officials can be punished -- only if the offended official can prove the falsehoods were published with "actual malice," i.e.: "knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Other kinds of "libelous statements" are also punishable.
  • Legally "obscene" material has historically been excluded from First Amendment protection. Unfortunately, the relatively narrow obscenity exception, described below, has been abused by government authorities and private pressure groups. Sexual expression in art and entertainment is, and has historically been, the most frequent target of censorship crusades, from James Joyce's classic Ulysses to the photographs of Robert Mapplethorpe.

In the 1973 Miller v. California decision, the Court established three conditions that must be present if a work is to be deemed "legally obscene." It must 1) appeal to the average person's prurient (shameful, morbid) interest in sex; 2) depict sexual conduct in a "patently offensive way" as defined by community standards; and 3) taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Attempts to apply the "Miller test" have demonstrated the impossibility of formulating a precise definition of obscenity. Justice Potter Stewart once delivered a famous one-liner on the subject: "I know it when I see it." But the fact is, the obscenity exception to the First Amendment is highly subjective and practically invites government abuse.

<snip>

Original Source: http://archive.aclu.org/library/pbp10.html

 
 
"Watching a cockfight is like watching a ballet," he says. "It’s beauty in motion."
http://publications.neworleans.com/lalife/22.4.-PECKINGORDER.html
 
First Amendment protection is not limited to "pure speech" -- books, newspapers, leaflets, and rallies. It also protects "symbolic speech"
 
 
When I think of the news media and how it depends so totally on the First Amendment, I at the same time think how all other forms of self expression are so totally linked to this one part of the rule of our government, but how some are not being recognized due to long and diligent labeling as amusement or otherwise by those who would seek to silence them. Just as the artist has the freedom to express himself in his art, the speaker in his speech and the author in his writings, so does the gamefowl breeder express himself in the perpetuation and creation of his fowl and their actions. Other issues may enter into the overall picture on this form of expression when in organized events, but none the less the basic action of the breeder is one of self expression and yes, even the basic act of allowing the fowl to engage in their natural instincts is moreover the extension of the breeders self expression in the art of creation of the fowl to completion.
 
Courtesy: CJ
 
 
Could We Call This One...
Begrudgingly Allowing Someone Their First Amendment Rights?
 
.......it is with some trepidation that I now support the growing sport of chicken boxing........
 

Make boxing chickens new Hawaii sport

Having been on the record for some time for not only being in favor of cockfighting, but believing that all poultry should have a chance to die in the glory of battle before ending up on our dinner plates, it is with some trepidation that I now support the growing sport of chicken boxing.

Chicken boxing is not akin to alligator wrestling or kangaroo boxing, wherein a human engages a creature in combat, but it's a sport in which two evenly matched chickens duke it out wearing boxing gloves the size of champagne corks. This does not mean that I favor the relatively bloodless competition of boxing chickens over roosters fighting with razor sharp blades. I think one can enjoy both the "sweet science" of boxing as well as gruesome homicidal sports such as ice hockey or full-contact chess.

An Oklahoma legislator is proposing the legalization in that state of chicken boxing, sanctioned, curiously, by the Oklahoma Horse Racing Commission.

The roosters will wear little boxing gloves with a computerized system to tell which cock is beating the hell out of the other one.

"Who's going to object to chickens fighting like humans do?" asked OK state Sen. Frank Shurden.

The answer is PAUAFAP (People Against Using Animals for the Amusement of People). And I suspect more than a few Oklahoma racing horses will be against poultry being allowed to join their club.

IN HAWAII we have illegal cockfighting all the time. These roosters fight to the death, slashing at each other with razor gaffs. If we allowed legal chicken boxing in Hawaii, the worst that would happen to the losing fowl is that all the punching would make him a little more tender for the pot.

Chicken boxing would allow breeders here to continue their pastime without having to hide their cocks from police or disguise them to look like cats or other small animals.

Chicken boxing also would be good for the self-esteem of the chickens, as I would insist that all poultry be allowed to take part in the pugilistic contests, not just the males. The thought of a chicken being taken to the slaughterhouse without being allowed to fight is just too sad to contemplate. (I could have had class, Charlie. I could have been a contender -- instead of the mere entree I am today.)


Charles Memminger, the National Society of Newspaper Columnists' 2004 First Place Award winner for humor writing, appears Sundays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. E-mail cmemminger@starbulletin.com
 
 
Source: http://starbulletin.com/2005/01/30/features/memminger.html
 
 
 
Would It Appear The AR Consider It More Acceptable To Them To Simply Kill The Fowl?
 
....... "How do they prevent the birds from pecking and scratching each other?" Pentangelo said. "And what happens to these birds should they not fare well in a fight? What happens to them then?........
 
 
Cockfighting Opponents Criticize Proposed Rooster Boxing

The Associated Press
   OKLAHOMA CITY   —   Opponents of cockfighting say an Oklahoma state senator's proposal to make the sport more humane will not work.
    Sen. Frank Shurden, D-Henryetta, has introduced a bill for the legislative session that begins Feb. 7 that would allow roosters to fight, but they would be fitted with little boxing gloves rather than the razor-like spurs that are traditional for such contests.
    Oklahoma voters banned cockfighting in 2002. The practice is still legal in Louisiana and New Mexico.
    "One of these days, he will figure out it's a bloodsport whether these roosters don boxing gloves or not," said Jay Sabatucci, a Dallas-based regional coordinator for The Humane Society of the United States. "This is not like a boxer who gets paid a million dollars to fight. These are two animals who are pitted against one another. They have no choice."
    Gamecock breeders have used sparring "muffs"   —   or miniature boxing gloves   —   for decades to train their birds while preventing serious injuries. They sell for as little as $10 a pair.
    Cynthia Armstrong of the Oklahoma Coalition Against Cockfighting calls Shurden's bill "a ruse."
    "I hope people won't be fooled by these misleading assurances by Senator Shurden," Armstrong said. "I don't think these people have any intentions of fighting with gloves. If they had, they would have done it long ago. This is not a kinder, gentler fight. It's all the same."
    Special agent Joseph Pentangelo of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in New York is appalled by Shurden's bill. He said news of Shurden's plan spread quickly among his colleagues.
    "How do they prevent the birds from pecking and scratching each other?" Pentangelo said. "And what happens to these birds should they not fare well in a fight? What happens to them then?
    "I still think it's inhumane to pit any two animals in a fight, no matter how it's done."
    James Talley, Oklahoma Gamefowl Breeders Association president, said the little boxing gloves would protect the birds.
    "I think it would be safer than the Golden Gloves," he said. "Everyone knows the natural spurs are what cause most of the damage during a fight, and that would be eliminated with the muffs.
    "I don't know how receptive people will be to it, but it will work."
    Talley said gamefowl breeders have suffered since the U.S. Supreme Court in November rejected an appeal to overturn Oklahoma's cockfighting ban. Since then, he said he has watched his organization's membership plummet from about 11,000 members to "a little more than a 1,000."
    "Look, I think cockfighting will be around until the end of time," Talley said. "In Oklahoma, people are simply looking for a way to raise roosters and use them in a useful way. This would give them that chance.
    "The ones who can't live without cockfighting are the ones out there doing it now anyway. But this bill would bring everything out in the open, and give people an honest and legitimate reason again to raise their birds."
 
Source: http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/apboxing01-31-05.htm
 
 
If It's True In The UK, Isn't It True Everywhere Else?
 
.......The simple fact is attacks by animal rights extremists put medical breakthroughs in areas like Aids, cancer and Alzheimer's directly at risk.......
 
 
Animal rights activists
 

Animal rights activists could face five years in prison for targeting research centres under measures to be published by the government.

The plans, part of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, follow attacks on scientists and breeders.

These include graffiti, hate mail, malicious phone calls, hoax bombs and arson attacks.

Government Response: Department of Trade and Industry

Patricia Hewitt, secretary of state for trade and industry, said:  "The simple fact is attacks by animal rights extremists put medical breakthroughs in areas like Aids, cancer and Alzheimer's directly at risk.

"This new law would not affect the important right to peaceful protest, while cracking down hard on those extremists committing crimes - and some horrific acts - against innocent people involved in the supply chain.

"Animal rights extremists pose a real threat to investment in the UK. We want Britain to be the best place in the world for science and our fast growing bioscience industry, worth more than £3 billion a year, is a key part of our world-class science base.

"Extremists are also ruining the lives and livelihoods of people and communities. This is totally unacceptable and our new laws will come with a maximum five-year sentence. These measures will give firms and individuals the security to go about their everyday business."

<snip>

Source: http://www.epolitix.com/EN/ForumBriefs/200501/24b2b21a-85ad-4b9e-b3ab-46ff7625a50d.htm