Tuesday
Apr202010
Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Against Animal Cruelty Videos
Tuesday, April 20, 2010 at 11:39AM
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a 1999 law criminalizing the creation, sale and possession of depictions of animal cruelty.
In Congressional debate, most of the attention was focused on so-called "crush videos," described as videos of women in high heels stepping on and killing small animals, but the law was used in 2004 to prosecute Robert Stevens for selling dog-fighting videos.
Justice John Paul Stevens, who turned 90 today, argued that the law was an unconstitutional infringement of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, and the Supreme Court, in an 8-to-1 decision, agreed. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, dismissed the government's argument that depictions of animal cruelty, like child pornography, had no societal value and therefore were not protected by the Constitution. The Court wrote that the government's explanation of First Amendment rights is "startling and dangerous," noting that while there is a long history of laws against animal cruelty, there is no historical basis for arguing the First Amendment was never intended to protect depictions of animal cruelty.
Continuing, the Court pointed out that the law would criminalize a large amount of material that is legal in most states. For example, hunting videos or magazines would be legal in most places, but sale and possession of depictions of hunting might be a federal crime in the District of Columbia because hunting is illegal in DC. Videos of bow hunting would be illegal in any state that outlaws bow hunting. Further, videos showing the slaughter of livestock might be illegal in places where health regulations prevent slaughterhouses from operating.
The opinion also dismisses former President Clinton's signing statement as a limit on the law that would make it constitutional. When he signed the law, Mr. Clinton said that it would be limited to depictions "of wanton cruelty to animals designed to appeal to a prurient interest in sex." Robert Stevens's dog fighting videos did not fall into this category, the Court noted, so that statement does not save the law.
Justice Samuel Alito, the only Justice dissenting from the decision, wrote that he thought the law could be limited by the Court to only cover some depictions of animal cruelty, and thus it could be made constitutional. Alito wrote that he would exclude hunting from the law's coverage, pointing out that most states' animal cruelty laws already exclude wild animals.
In Congressional debate, most of the attention was focused on so-called "crush videos," described as videos of women in high heels stepping on and killing small animals, but the law was used in 2004 to prosecute Robert Stevens for selling dog-fighting videos.
Justice John Paul Stevens, who turned 90 today, argued that the law was an unconstitutional infringement of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, and the Supreme Court, in an 8-to-1 decision, agreed. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, dismissed the government's argument that depictions of animal cruelty, like child pornography, had no societal value and therefore were not protected by the Constitution. The Court wrote that the government's explanation of First Amendment rights is "startling and dangerous," noting that while there is a long history of laws against animal cruelty, there is no historical basis for arguing the First Amendment was never intended to protect depictions of animal cruelty.
Continuing, the Court pointed out that the law would criminalize a large amount of material that is legal in most states. For example, hunting videos or magazines would be legal in most places, but sale and possession of depictions of hunting might be a federal crime in the District of Columbia because hunting is illegal in DC. Videos of bow hunting would be illegal in any state that outlaws bow hunting. Further, videos showing the slaughter of livestock might be illegal in places where health regulations prevent slaughterhouses from operating.
The opinion also dismisses former President Clinton's signing statement as a limit on the law that would make it constitutional. When he signed the law, Mr. Clinton said that it would be limited to depictions "of wanton cruelty to animals designed to appeal to a prurient interest in sex." Robert Stevens's dog fighting videos did not fall into this category, the Court noted, so that statement does not save the law.
Justice Samuel Alito, the only Justice dissenting from the decision, wrote that he thought the law could be limited by the Court to only cover some depictions of animal cruelty, and thus it could be made constitutional. Alito wrote that he would exclude hunting from the law's coverage, pointing out that most states' animal cruelty laws already exclude wild animals.
Reader Comments