Story by Victoria G. Molinar
Much debate has been sparked by a recent and devisive Supreme Court ruling.
While dogfighting and other forms of animal cruelty have been illegal in the U.S., on Tuesday, April 18, 2010, the Supreme Court struck down a national law that made it a crime to compose or sell dogfight videos along with any depictions of animal abuse. The decision was made 8-1, with the majority arguing the law was too broad and also unconstitutional because it limited freedom of speech.
"It should be illegal if you're just exploiting animals," said Sergio Marquez, Geology major (Photo by Victoria Molinar)
This decision disturbed many animal rights activist, who argue that allowing the trafficking of videos with animal cruelty will advocate the illegal acts. Free speech advocates argue that the law was too narrow and could punish those who are not using the videos as a promotion, but as journalistic coverage.
What started the debate?
"The new law just makes matters worse, but it does protect our freedom of speech because it allows people to express their beliefs." -Janet Rodriguez, Criminal Justice major (Photo by Victoria Molinar)
In 2004, Virginia citizen Robert Stevens was brought to the court for producing films of dogfights. While he did not participate in the dogfights, Stevens did, however, create and sell videotapes showing the fights. At the time, there was a 1999 federal statute that made it illegal to create, possess or sell videos with depictions of animal cruelty unless the material was of “serious value”. While Stevens defended that his videos sales should be protected by the First Amendment, he was sentenced to 37 months in prison.
Proctection of the First Amendment
The case was once again examined on April 18. According to the Huffington Post, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who wrote for the majority vote, said that the 1999 law was startling and dangerous and that, “The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits.” The Media Coalition also argued that the extent of the statute would possibly punish authors and illustrators of films, magazines and illustrated books that depict acts such as hunting and bullfighting.
Advocation of animal abuse
"The decision is going to raise more controversy with groups like PETA, but no matter what decision is made, there's always going to be a person that is not satisfied." -Stephanie Sanchez, Criminal Justice major (Photo by Victoria Molinar)
Other people point out that allowing videos which depict animal cruelty will also advocate it because the 1999 statute was intended to criminalize the production of the alleged “crush videos” (also called “squish videos”), which are fetish and pornography videos that basically show women stepping on and killing small animals with their heels (often stiletto heels).
Now that the law has been stuck down, such videos can legally be made and trafficked.
"Dogfight videos should be illegal because they can promote animal cruelty." -Peter Hornbecker (Photo by Victoria Molinar)
In an opinion article on the New York Times, Stanley Fish, who was not entirely for the Supreme Court decision, wrote, “…aside from a direct incitement to violence or an act of treason, no expressive activity can be worthless enough to forfeit its constitutional protection. So much for the kittens.”
Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Justice Samuel Alito argued that in the way that filming child pornography promotes and causes child abuse, actions depicted on crush videos will do the same, and the number of animal abuse crimes will be reduced if crush videos are made illegal.
