Tuesday
Oct062009
Supreme Court Hears Case Of Animal Cruelty And Free Speech
Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 5:18PM
By Ravi Bhatia-Talk Radio News Service
Animal cruelty clashed with first amendment rights today in the U.S. Supreme Court case of United States v. Stevens, which also marked Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s second day sitting as an Associate Justice in the Court’s new term.
In 2004, Robert Stevens was indicted and charged with selling three dogfighting videos to undercover law enforcement agents. Congress enacted the statute in 1999, which deemed that whoever sells depictions of animal cruelty would be fined and/or imprisoned for up to five years.
Steven’s 37-month sentence was 14 months longer than NFL quarterback Michael Vick’s, who had participated firsthand in a dogfighting venture. Although dogfighting is illegal in all 50 states, the practice is legal in Japan, where much of the footage in Stevens’ videos came from.
According to Neal Katyal, the government lawyer defending the law, a “robust market” in animal cruelty exists. Upholding the statute would dry up the market for such material, he argued. It would also add to the precedent set in New York v. Ferber in 1982, when the Court ruled that the First Amendment right to free speech did not forbid states from banning the sale of child pornography.
The Ferber case was the last time that the question of whether or not material was too obscene to receive first amendment protection was addressed.
Patricia Millett argued on behalf of Stevens, suggesting that the statute was drafted too broadly and that it applied to legally protected activity.
Congress had enacted Article 48 in order to outlaw “crush videos,” which depicted close-ups of women inflicting torture on animals such as hamsters, puppies and kittens with their bare feet or while wearing high-heeled shoes.
The Supreme Court will release their decision on the case later this year, although the tone of the hearing implies that the justices are leaning towards affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals in overturning the law.
Animal cruelty clashed with first amendment rights today in the U.S. Supreme Court case of United States v. Stevens, which also marked Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s second day sitting as an Associate Justice in the Court’s new term.
In 2004, Robert Stevens was indicted and charged with selling three dogfighting videos to undercover law enforcement agents. Congress enacted the statute in 1999, which deemed that whoever sells depictions of animal cruelty would be fined and/or imprisoned for up to five years.
Steven’s 37-month sentence was 14 months longer than NFL quarterback Michael Vick’s, who had participated firsthand in a dogfighting venture. Although dogfighting is illegal in all 50 states, the practice is legal in Japan, where much of the footage in Stevens’ videos came from.
According to Neal Katyal, the government lawyer defending the law, a “robust market” in animal cruelty exists. Upholding the statute would dry up the market for such material, he argued. It would also add to the precedent set in New York v. Ferber in 1982, when the Court ruled that the First Amendment right to free speech did not forbid states from banning the sale of child pornography.
The Ferber case was the last time that the question of whether or not material was too obscene to receive first amendment protection was addressed.
Patricia Millett argued on behalf of Stevens, suggesting that the statute was drafted too broadly and that it applied to legally protected activity.
Congress had enacted Article 48 in order to outlaw “crush videos,” which depicted close-ups of women inflicting torture on animals such as hamsters, puppies and kittens with their bare feet or while wearing high-heeled shoes.
The Supreme Court will release their decision on the case later this year, although the tone of the hearing implies that the justices are leaning towards affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals in overturning the law.
Reader Comments