Freedom of Speech = Freedom of Expression?

This week the Supreme Court struck down a ban on videos depicting animal cruelty under the guise of First Amendment Free Speech, but in what context is a video of vicious dog fights or an animal being crushed underfoot somebody's speech? American jurisprudence has changed (progressed?) concerning the First Amendment to bring a citizen's "expressions" into the purview of "speech." While I certainly champion someone's right to express themselves in particular ways and to keep government limitations of this right to a minimum, I am struck by Prof. George Anastaplo's opinion on the subject. Anastaplo, a professor of law at Loyola Chicago and of other disciplines at Univ. of Chicago, points out that the First Amendment Freedom of Speech descends directly from English Parliamentary procedure, whereby (pre-colonial) MPs would, prior to convening a new session, ask the king for clemency from prosecution for any public matters discussed. Indeed, most anything said on the floor of Parliament was free from prosecutorial scrutiny and allowed the MPs to discuss things openly and to do the people's business most efficiently.

As this tradition spread to the American colonies, it eventually was incorporated in state constitutions. The First Amendment simply memorialized a right the people enjoyed for centuries to speak freely about public matters. Expression, however, Anastaplo argues, was not fully covered under this freedom, unless it had something to do with public policy or matters of public interest. Local communities, he states, should have the right to regulate such non-speech expression through decency laws or allow such expressions to be protected under some other statutory right.

While I certainly see the danger in allowing local communities to shut down certain expressions of artists, filmmakers, or just the common citizen, I have to say that I find Prof. Anastaplo's argument to have serious merit. The right to speak freely about public matters is more important than the right to distribute videos of animal cruelty and should be given a higher level of protection. I see no merit in allowing someone to profit off the killing or maiming of an animal and claim protection under the First Amendment (just as I see no merit in allowing someone to profit off child pornography) and invite some narrowing of the scope of the "freedom of expression" under the First Amendment. The SCOTUS, in its opinion, claimed that the law in question was simply too broad and that animal cruelty videos could otherwise be curtailed. However, I think the general notion that any expression, no matter how obscene, should be given the same protection as the serious discussion of public policy matters needs to be reconsidered.

Ct'd

The AP's Mark Sherman explains the decision here.

A Humane Nation's Wayne Pacelle writes.

However, nothing I've seen from bloggers or other writers discusses the idea of freedom of expression being covered under the First Amendment.