Free speech includes torturing animals?

04/26/2010

Credit: AP Photo/Emilio Morenatti

The Supreme Court made a big decision last week related to animal abuse. And it didn't come down on the side of animal protection.

In last Tuesday's Supreme Court case, U.S. v. Stevens, the Justices upheld the Third Circuit Court of Appeals finding that, in essence, held that violent "crush videos" and dogfight videos are protected as First Amendment free speech - at least until a new law passes constitutional muster. For the unaware, hold onto your hats: Crush videos show women in sharp high heels stomping or crushing the heads of living animals – puppies, kittens, hamsters, or rabbits– to death. Apparently some people get off on this.

The 1999 Depiction of Animal Cruelty Act had outlawed “knowingly selling depictions of animal cruelty, with the intention of placing them in interstate commerce," but the Justices ruled 8-1 that the language was "overbroad." The Justices' concern centered on the fact that, as written, the law could theoretically apply to videos of hunting or animal slaughterhouses. This mirrored concerns by the National Rifle Association (NRA), which turned in a "friend of the court" brief (aka amicus brief) for the case. The U.S. government, which fought the case to uphold the law against 69-year old Robert Stevens who sold dogfighting videos, disagreed, as did several animal welfare organizations, including the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) which also filed friend of the court briefs.

I found it interesting that the 1999 law had a real impact on reducing the sale of crush videos, which had proliferated in the late 1990s, but declined after they were made illegal. After the 2008 ruling, they once again started to sell. And now the Supreme Court ruling ensures the sadistic videos will continue to sell, until things change again.

HSUS senior attorney Kim Ockene told me that the animal stomping is only done to make crush videos, and the two are inseparable. The market feeds the animal abuse. The Supreme Court used that same line of reasoning to argue that child pornography should not be protected as free speech. So why not animal violence? Justice Stevens (not related to the defendant in the case) did hint that the ruling may not apply to a law specifically targeting crush videos.

As soon as the Court overturned the law (or more specifically, upheld the Third Circuit Court of Appeals finding in 2008 that ruled the law unconstitutional), new legislation was drafted by U.S. Representative Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.) - that very day. Elton had drafted the 1999 legislation as well. The new bill uses language to more clearly and specifically target crush videos, but still faces constitutional challenges.

What I want to know is, but which I was unable to find: if the video depicted humans being crushed, would the same standard apply? Apparently, I'm not the only one to ask that question.