United States v. Stevens [08-769]: an Historic Event for the Animal Community

United States v. Stevens is the first Supreme Court case challenging the constitutionality of an animal cruelty statute. This is an historic event for the animal community, and we are proud to have representatives from K9 PAC there this morning to show our support.

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:

1. 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)
   
2. Oyez Supreme Court Media (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2009_08_769)

Breed Bans Work Against Pit Bull Rescue Operations

Following cases like that of Diane Whipple, who was attacked and killed by two Presa Canarios in her apartment complex, people's fears about dog attacks were understandably heightened. Although cases of dog attacks naturally bring into question the need for stricter regulations of and punishments for irresponsible dog owners, breed bans are an extreme and misplaced political response to the public's fear of violent and aggressive dogs. This policy simply will not work because it is banning the symptom rather than the cause. Dog attacks happen because the dog in question is violent and unstable, not because it was born a certain breed. Violence and instability is largely a product of nurture rather than nature (with the exception of mental or chemical imbalance), which means that the source of these issues is the human, not the dog. By banning breeds of dogs, we are ignoring the primary issue and reinforcing that abusive owners are not responsible for their actions or the actions of their pet. This is not the message that we want to send. Accountability for aggressive dog behavior needs to be placed on the people who cause the fear and pain that lead to the behavior.

Pit Bulls are the primary target of the existing breed bans. Although dogs of all breeds have caused injury or death to humans, Pit Bulls have been an easy target because of the breed's reputation as violent killers and popularity among violent and criminal dog owners. This reputation has not been earned, it has been given to them and promoted by many irresponsible pit bull owners who benefit personally or financially from the rough-and-tough reputation that Pit Bulls now have. Many of these owners like the idea of having a "killing machine" as a pet, since it lends a certain 'machismo' to them as owners. Others use Pit Bulls and market their killer reputations for profit, using them in underground dog fighting operations. One of the most frustrating parts about the ongoing breed discrimination and breed bans is that they reinforce the negative reputation of many power breeds like Pit Bulls, which serves as free promotion for the despicable owners that benefit from their Pit Bulls' violent image. The result of these bans is that the dogs are punished by being banned from a nice life with loving family members in these select cities and counties, while the real criminals (the people who abuse & fight the dogs) get free advertising, higher prices for pit bulls as a result of black market demand, and no consequences for their crimes. This is sending the wrong message!

The Michael Vick case brought dog fighting into the foreground of animal issues, inspiring a number of changes in laws and in strategies for bringing down dog fighting operations. A sense of victory spread throughout the animal advocate/activist community earlier this month, when the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and other animal rescue organizations worked with the federal, state, and local authorities to seize over 400 dogs from an 8-state dog fighting operation. Thankfully, many dog rescue organizations have opened their doors to dogs rescued from the Vick case and from this recent raid. There has also been a great deal of progress made toward giving these animals a second chance. In prior years, it was believed that dogs with fighting backgrounds needed to be euthanized because they would be unable to recover and be introduced to normal family life. Thankfully, we have evolved and realized that dogs are individuals and although some may be too damaged to fully recover, many of these dogs were just waiting for the opportunity to love and be loved. Rescue organizations like Best Friends Animal Society even takes in dogs who cannot be placed with adoptive families, and help them to live the remainder of their lives as happy and healthy dogs with people who are trained to care for them.

Recent and positive news about rehabilitation of the "Vicktory dogs", as the dogs from the Vick raid are now referred to, has proved that dogs are astoundingly resilient. Dogs react to their environment and the people who care for them (or abuse them). Their behavior, good or bad, is a product of their human's behaviors and how they treat the dog. In addition, the Vicktory dogs teach us that Pit Bulls, even ones that have been abused and exposed to dog fighting, can be sweet and loving family members. This is the greatest evidence against breed bans and discrimination. But now that these dogs are rescued and need homes, where should they go? In a time where rescue organizations are making great strides toward rescuing dogs from violent and horrific circumstances, certain counties and cities are closing their doors to the dogs that are most in need. In order to accomplish the goal of bringing an end to dog fighting rings, and encouraging the proper treatment of dogs to create healthy, happy, and well-balanced pets, we need people to be more open than ever to getting involved and embracing the misunderstood breeds. We need more adoptive families to be available to provide forever homes for these second-chance pups, and a community that embraces them and supports their progress.

Banning dog breeds that are most affected by abuse and dog fighting hinders the progress of rescue and humane organizations that are trying so desperately to save them. Casting these dogs aside does more harm than good by decreasing the amount of available homes for rescued dogs, encouraging the social stigma and fear surrounding specific breeds, and forcing the dogs deeper into a world of crime and violence via black market sales and dog fighting operations. Further, bans do nothing to address the criminal actions of these dog owners. Our representatives and law makers need to focus on setting and enforcing the proper punishments for these individuals in order to cut the circle of dog abuse that leads to violent incidences between dogs and humans. With open communication and collaboration between government, law makers, and humane rescue organizations, I believe that we can create the properly aligned incentives, punishments, and deterrence necessary to eventually end this cycle of dog abuse, and to re-establish the human-animal bond.