Humans are always looking for newer and crueller ways of exercising false superiority over other species. Free speech is another example. Humans promote their own right to free speech while denying that right to nonhuman animal species. As shown below, humans can torture nonhumans or forcefully silence them, and neither they nor humans have the right to speak in their defence. Conversely, humans can brutally kill and torture nonhumans without redress in the name of free speech.
Free speech for humans = free torture of nonhumans
As I discuss here, the US Supreme Court is so eager to protect a human’s right to free speech that they do so even when that speech involves crush?videos. These videos show a?human slowly piercing the skull of an animal under its heel, until it implodes and smashes its brain into pieces.
The Supreme Court ruled that these?videos?are a valid expression of free speech and require protection, regardless of the fate for the animal, as its remnants are wiped off from under the shoe.
Surely free speech must be ultra important if it is more important than such murderousness, right? Wrong.
No free speech for nonhumans = free torture of nonhumans
Human free speech may be sacred, but nonhumans can be silenced by any means.
In an effort to prevent dogs from speaking, humans wrap shock collars around their neck. Then, if the dog tries to speak or indeed does anything the human doesn’t agree with, a pulse of electronic shock is sent through their body.?
Not only rendering the dog silent (and bewildered), but also leaving a bloody, physical imprint.
These metal prongs deliver the shock…
…and the result.
Free torture of nonhumans = no free speech for humans
But humans – a warning – don’t try to exercise your right to free speech if it is speaking in defence of nonhumans. Then you too will be silenced.
Take for example the practice of factory farming. The squalid and short lives of farm animals cannot be exposed in Idaho.
Amending Chapter 70, Title 18, of the Idaho Code, now prevents ‘audio or video recordings of the conduct of an agricultural production facility’s operations.’ The FBI has taken this further, ready to prosecute as terrorists those who simply wish to exercise their free speech in placing a spotlight on unbelievable suffering.
Recent investigations shown on Australia’s public broadcaster showed such brutality that it resulted in an uproar and briefly changed the laws relating to farming practices and live animal exports. As a result, the Australian government is looking to follow the US and prevent any such investigations in the future as an act of terrorism.
So farmers can have their way with nonhumans however brutally they wish, and they can do so in silence. All of a sudden free speech is not so important for these humans.