High court hears arguments: animal rights versus free speech
October 6, 2009 by donal brown
Filed under 1st Amendment News, Freedom of Speech / Press, News & Opinion
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments this week on whether videos of dogfights are protected speech under the First Amendment. The Obama administration is asking the court to reinstate the Federal Depiction of Animal Cruelty law, restricting the sale of videos and depictions of animal cruelty. -DB
October 6, 2009
By Deborah Tedford
Animal rights groups and free speech advocates squared off in a major First Amendment battle Tuesday, as the U.S. Supreme Court prepared to decide whether videos of illegal dogfights are protected speech.
In oral arguments, the Obama administration asked the justices to reinstate the Federal Depiction of Animal Cruelty statute. The 10-year-old law prohibits the sale of videos and other depictions of animal cruelty in jurisdictions where the activities shown are illegal unless they have “serious value.”
But Virginia filmmaker Robert Stevens argued in court filings that the law is too broad and violates his constitutional right to free speech. In 2005, Stevens was convicted of producing violent videos of dogfights and sentenced to 37 months in prison, but a federal appeals court found the law unconstitutional and overturned his conviction.
Related NPR Stories
Dogfighting Case Gets Its Day In Court Oct. 6, 2009
Court Won’t Block Release Of Conn. Sex Abuse Papers Oct. 5, 2009
A Changed Court Faces Key Decisions In New Term Oct. 5, 2009
At issue in U.S. v. Stevens is whether animal cruelty should be categorized as expression so reprehensible that it does not deserve First Amendment protection. That hasn’t been done since the court’s landmark 1982 ruling on child pornography.
During arguments Tuesday, several of the justices indicated that they may agree with Stevens.
“Why not do a simpler thing?” Justice Stephen Breyer asked a lawyer for the government. “Ask Congress to write a statute that actually aims at the frightful things they were trying to prohibit.”
Stevens’ lawyer Patricia Millet said Congress must be careful when restricting an individual’s right to free speech, noting lawmakers should use “a scalpel, not a buzzsaw.”
Representing the government, Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal said Congress was careful to exempt hunting, educational, journalistic and other depictions from the law. Katyal urged the court not to wipe away the legislation in its entirety, but to allow courts to decide on a case-by-case basis whether videos are prohibited.
Justice Samuel Alito asked if whether the court should focus on the potential prosecution of hunters, “or do we look at what’s happening in the real world?”
Congress passed the law in 1999 with an eye toward limiting Internet sales of “crush videos,” which show women crushing small animals with their bare feet or while wearing high-heeled shoes, according to Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA), who sponsored the anti-cruelty legislation.
“Other crimes often go hand-in-hand with animal fighting, including illegal gambling, drug trafficking and acts of human violence,” Gallegly said in a statement on his Web site. “Virtually every arrest for animal cruelty has also led to additional arrests for at least one of these criminal activities. Moreover, gratuitous cruelty toward animals dehumanizes all of us and is simply wrong.”
The case has generated a large amount of interest, in part because of the dogfighting conviction of pro football player Michael Vick in 2007. Vick served nearly two years for running an interstate dogfighting ring from his home in Virginia and was released in May.
Stevens, a pit bull enthusiast, has said he opposes animal cruelty. In court documents, he maintained he did not stage the dogfights and that the videos were intended to be instructional guides for pit bull owners.
He has garnered support from major news organizations and free speech advocates, who argued that the law could discourage efforts to investigate such activities as seal clubbing or animal testing in the cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries if video or photographic images are obtained.
“Images of bullfighting in Spain, historical footage of cockfighting in Louisiana and documentaries about clubbing seals in Canada all could be prosecuted under the statute,” the American Civil Liberties Union stated in a court brief supporting Stephens.
But animal rights advocates and law enforcement agencies around the country argued that removing the profit motive from “blood sports” is a valuable tool for law enforcement authorities.
“The importance of the law in stopping animal cruelty cannot be overstated,” said Sgt. David Hunt of the Franklin County Sheriff’s Department. “It’s a powerful tool to go after those who profit from illegal animal cruelty and promote criminal behavior.”
From NPR staff and wire reports
Copyright 2009 NPR
“You gotta be kidding me!” That was my first thought as I pondered the recent Supreme Court ruling negating a law making it a crime to sell videos of extreme animal cruelty. “This can’t be right”, I screamed inside my head. How can you not see that videos such as these are not only sick, they may lead to more cruel behavior?
Someone who may not be quite right in the head in the first place may well be influenced to some kind of copy cat behavior. It was then I came back to reality…the ruling did not infer that such insensitivity is okay. The Supreme Court was simply sending a message to Congress about a constitutional issue called free speech.
You see, apparently, Congress wrote the disputed law too broadly. The law, as written, may have potentially covered other activities that may seem cruel to some (hunting as an example). Trapping with those old steel jaws of pain may be another example. While these activities are cruel, even more cruel is to record these things for the intent to show them as, entertainment?
I, personally refuse to search for such a video, but I understand you can watch such fun things as a woman’s high heel piercing through a small animal; or, how about an underwater video of someone drowning a puppy or a cat? Boy, that’s entertainment! Someone pass the popcorn, please.
Free speech is always under attack by someone at one time or another. I’d love to be able to wave a magic wand and make every video on earth depicting some cruel act simply disintegrate – you know, like the old mission impossible. “This tape will self-destruct in 5 seconds.” But I can’t do that, and neither can anyone else. What we do as a civilized society is to ask our elected officials to do something about it.
That’s what they were trying to do when the Supreme Court pointed out the error in the law they drafted. That’s why we have a Supreme Court; to make these tough decisions. We may not always agree, but you must admit, it is good to have such a burden passed on to nine wise individuals, working always to keep our Constitution intact.