The Depiction of Animal Cruelty Law
The law under review is the federal Depiction of Animal Cruelty Law that was passed by Congress with overwhelming support in 1999 in response to interstate sale of videos depicting illegal acts of animal cruelty, including "animal crush" videos. The federal law has an exemption for materials with "serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value."1 Nonetheless, it is under review on the basis of constitutionality.
Robert Stevens (Respondent)
Robert Stevens is a known promoter of dog fighting, has peddled several videos depicting grossly inhumane treatment of animals, and authored a dog fighting training manual, "Dogs of Velvet and Steel: Pit Bulldogs a Manual for Owners". Upon review of Stevens' case, the Pennsylvania federal district court found that Robert Stevens did not meet any of the exemptions stated in the previous section, and he was convicted under 18 U.S.C. Section 48 for "knowingly selling depictions of animal cruelty with the intention of placing those depictions in interstate commerce for commercial gain." 1 Stevens appealed his conviction arguing that 18 U.S.C. Section 48, on its face, was unconstitutional because it violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed with Mr. Stevens and reversed his conviction, holding unconstitutional 18 U.S.C. Section 48. The court reasoned that the dog fighting videos he sold were protected speech and that 18 U.S.C. Section 48 did not serve a compelling governmental interest.2
Implications for the Animal Community & "Animal Crush" Videos
The "animal crush" videos that largely influenced the introduction and passing of the Depiction of Animal Cruelty Law, show women in stiletto heels crush, impale, and burn small animals to appease the sexual fetishes of their sick and depraved viewers. In the decade that the Depiction of Animal Cruelty Law has been in force, the crush video industry plummeted.
However, following the ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, animal crush videos resurfaced under the protection of the First Amendment and sales have increased dramatically. 1
Now, on the day of the Supreme Court hearing, the animal community waits anxiously to see if a decade of animal protection will be restored, or if the injury, torture, and death of innocent animals for profit and entertainment will be shielded by the First Amendment. A ruling upholding the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit could be devastating to the animal community and to the animals that play leading roles in dog fighting and animal crush videos. Further, we will look to the written opinions, both concurring and dissenting, for direction in future animal welfare and animal rights cases.
The Supreme Court Hearing
This morning, October 6, 2009, the Supreme Court of the United States is scheduled to answer the question, "Is 18 U.S.C. Section 48, on its face, unconstitutional under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?"2
K9 PAC Position Statement
We at K9 PAC stand with HSUS and other animal welfare organizations in opposition of Stevens and in support of upholding the Depiction of Animal Cruelty Law. The torture and killing of animals for amusement and profit is not an issue of free speech, rather, it is an issue of animal protection and basic human decency. The First Amendment, in its genesis, was never intended to protect perverted and criminal enterprises. We hope that the Supreme Court will stand firmly on the side of animal welfare and help to reinforce that we are a society that takes our freedoms seriously and refuses to allow criminals to twist our Bill of Rights to shield themselves from just and due legal consequences.
Sources:
- Wayne Pacelle: A Humane Nation, "Animal Torture is Not Free Speech". October 5, 2009 (http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2009/10/stevens-supreme-court.html)
- Oyez Supreme Court Media (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2009_08_769)
