Supreme Court Decides Free Speech vs. Animal Cruelty

The Supreme Court struck down a law Tuesday prohibiting videos that graphically depict acts of animal cruelty (including torture and sometimes death), citing flaws with the law and concerns about the First Amendment.

We're talking about United States v. Stevens, a case challenging a 1999 law making it illegal to create or sell depictions of animal cruelty. The decision, while potentially a good thing for the First Amendment, is a setback for animal welfare advocates. Plainly put, the Court has struck down a law making it illegal to make or sell videos depicting acts of cruelty to animals.

The big examples of what this law is intended to handle are so-called "crush videos," films of people stomping on small animals for sexual thrills, and videos of dog fights, which is what this case revolves around.  It's tough to believe that the Court would put Constitutional niceties ahead of acts of sickening and wanton cruelty. Truth is, this is less about the Court protecting jerks who exploit animals, and more about them protecting freedom of speech. (I doubt that matters very much to one of the animals being exploited, but I digress.)

The "Stevens" in this case is a fellow named Robert Stevens, the owner of a business named, "Dogs of Velvet and Steel." Stevens, through his business, sells videos of pit bull fighting. Despite his claim that his videos were supposed to provide some sort of "historical perspective" on dog fighting (has it changed that much over time?), Stevens was found guilty and sentenced to 37 months in the slammer. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals struck down his conviction, and subsequently, the Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court.

The Court's problem with the existing law is that it's just too broad and, if it's allowed to stand, it hits the First Amendment right where it hurts. Take for example, hunting, which is illegal in the District of Columbia. Under the law (as it existed before today), you could make the case that you couldn't sell a hunting magazine in D.C. Is keeping someone in Georgetown from picking up a turkey hunting magazine more important than protecting animals? Eight of the nine folks on the Court seem to think so.

Interestingly, our biggest ally on the Court on this decision was Justice Samuel Alito, not normally known as a warm and fuzzy kind of guy. Give him some credit though, for getting to the heart of the matter. Alito, the lone dissenter, wrote that the animals exploited in crush videos, "are living creatures that experience excruciating pain." Alito also pointed out the logical extension of striking down the law, saying that the Court's decision, "is thus likely to spur a resumption of [crush video] production."

Of course, now we don't have a way to prosecute that.

There's hope, though. The majority's opinion, penned by Chief Justice Roberts, doesn't indicate that a specific law targeted against, say, "crush videos" is unconstitutional. Indeed, the majority leaves the door open for just such a law. Similarly, it's at least debatable that if there were a law specifically prohibiting creating and distributing videos or pictures of illegal dogfights, that law might pass Constitutional muster.

This is a pretty sticky ethical situation. Speaking personally, if you torture, and probably kill, an animal for fun, you deserve to rot in the darkest prison cell we can find. If you do it for fun and profit, then I don't even want to know you exist. On the other hand, I like being able to say whatever I want, whenever I want, subject to only the most necessary restraints from my government. Intent is important, but so are principles. Clearly, the intent of the law was to take out the sickos who sell crush videos and those who enjoy watching them, not to target hunters and hunting enthusiasts. Nonetheless, the practical effect could be pretty bad for freedom of speech in general. You have to be pretty careful where basic Constitutional rights are concerned, lest you find yourself on the wrong side of a slippery slope.

So where do we go from here? We're not exactly back at square one, although there's no arguing that this is a setback. Fortunately, even in a setback, the Supreme Court has given us a little guidance for the way forward. We need a new law (or laws, preferably), written more specifically, and we need them yesterday. Get on the horn to your Congresscritter and make sure they know about the decision in Stevens, and the need to get a new law on the books quickly.

Photo credit: runJMrun