"Justices Reject Ban on Videos of Animal Cruelty"

When I saw yesterday's New York Times headline, above, my heart sank. I understand--intellectually--the legal basis for the ruling, particularly after Patrick Gillette, JD and dog lover, explained it to me. But emotionally, I can't seem to get past the message it sends to people who promote dog fighting. These scum aren't concerned with the First Amendment nuances of the ruling and probably view it as a judicial blessing to keep throwing dogs into a pit to tear each other apart while they film the carnage.

Over the nearly two years that I've volunteered at the animal shelter, I've handled a lot of pit bulls and pit bull mixes. (Much of the time, they represent the majority of the dog population at our shelter, since many shelters in the area won't accept pit bulls or, if they do, they euthanize them immediately.) Some of them have been my favorite dogs to come through the shelter; one of the most battered, whose snout was criss-crossed by scars from dog fights, had a disposition as sweet as that of Buzz, our little Papillon. The idea that the Supreme Court would do something that, for practical purposes, may add to the maiming and killing of these dogs sickens me.

Who would ever think that I could agree with Justice Alito?

Below: Jenkins, one of my favorite pit bull mixes from the shelter, and me at an animal adoption event last fall where I handled him for the afternoon. The big guy was adopted two months later; his new owner reported that Jenkins is "like a big puppy" who "loves to snuggle." But I already knew that . . .