Supreme Court strikes down law aimed at animal cruelty videos on free speech grounds

[kpete]

Source: Associated Press

Supreme Court strikes down law aimed at animal cruelty videos on free speech grounds

By MARK SHERMAN , Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court struck down a federal law Tuesday aimed at banning videos that show graphic violence against animals, saying it violates the right to free speech.

The justices, voting 8-1, threw out the criminal conviction of Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Va., who was sentenced to three years in prison for videos he made about pit bull fights.

The law was enacted in 1999 to limit Internet sales of so-called crush videos, which appeal to a certain sexual fetish by showing women crushing to death small animals with their bare feet or high-heeled shoes.

The videos virtually disappeared once the measure became law, the government argued.

Read more: http://www.startribune.com/nation/91594759.html

---

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, kp

[spiritual_gunfighter]

1. 8 to 1?

What the fuck?

[Mz Pip]

2. Alito dissented

and for a change I agree with his reasoning.

[jmowreader]

7. You know you're screwed when you agree with Samuel Alito!

[defendandprotect]

24. removed by poster

[johnfunk]

40. SILVER LINING: Tell your neighborhood rightie that Alito sided with PETA!

... and enjoy what the cognitive dissonance causes:



NOTICE: No actual right wingers were harmed in the making of teh above animated gif.

[superduperfarleft]

50. Alito didn't side with PETA, the rest of the justices did.

If Alito had his way, PETA's investigation videos could very well be deemed illegal.

[Ter]

75. Alito said:

"The animals used in crush videos are living creatures that experience excruciating pain. Our society has long banned such cruelty," he said. The courts, he said, have "erred in second-guessing the legislative judgment about the importance of preventing cruelty to animals."

Sounds genuine to me.

[humbled_opinion]

41. Me too

This valuable statute that was enacted not to suppress speech, but to prevent horrific acts of animal cruelty. There is a complete lack of Progressives on the SCOTUS.

[Igel]

64. Yet it doesn't prevent them,

yet prevents films about them.

The law was bad. Rewrite it, tailor it narrowly, and re-enact one that doesn't overstep.

People like Alito's reasoning because it points out a kind of speech that should be banned (IMHO and theirs) and which is covered by this law. However, this law covers a lot of other stuff that probably shouldn't be covered. It's the old "punish 100 people to make sure you punish the one guilty person" versus "let the one guilty person go to avoid punishing 99 innocent people" comparison. Some are iffy on the concept.

[humbled_opinion]

72. Your argument is silly..

You argue that Laws prevent crimes? What I am saying is that before the SCOTUS struck this down there was at the very minimum a method to prosecute and hold accountable those that would exploit this treatment of animals. You apparently care so little you would agree that video of such things is protected as free speech. I feel sorry for people that care so little about living things especially those things that show unconditional love for their human companions.

[happygoluckytoyou]

14. I AGREE WITH THE COURTS----->

sorry but the law also prevented films showing THE HARM OF SUCH DOGFIGHTS....

this is equal to the law about seeing soldiers die in wartime....

WRITE A BETTER LAW

[defendandprotect]

26. Removed by poster --

[Demstud]

58. Me too

If what I heard of the law is accurate, it was very poorly written and could easily be applied in a number of unintended ways to limit free speech. Judges were doing their job.

[sharesunited]

3. So producing and trafficking in videos of crimes-in-the-act is protected free speech?

[breadandwine]

4. And not only that, corporations are people. The court said so. See this song ---

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8181493

[lonestarnot]

12. Woohoopoop.

Grimacing monsters. For grimacing in Court, parties can be tossed, but judicial staff can be axed, apparently it's ok in a State of the Union address when you're a SCJOTUS, supreme ruler hypocrite.

[jmowreader]

11. Apparently so...

In Roberts' decision, he said the statute was broad enough to allow the prosecution of hunting videos, and that "we would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the government promised to use it responsibly." Which means this decision should serve as precedent to overturn the Patriot Act.

[paulsby]

30. exactly. and this is a HUGE problem in federal law

overbroad laws that prosecutors have discretion to use "responsibly"

those laws are NEVER just.

[NoNothing]

16. The speech is protected

The criminal conduct is not.

Clear?

So cruelty to animals is (in most places) a crime. You can be charged with that. You cannot *also* be charged with animal-snuff-filmery or whatever. If anything, you should *encourage* free speech about crimes you think are heinous - perhaps it will result in pressure to increase the penalties of the crime.

[mbperrin]

52. So if I choose to sell videos of animal abusers being lynched, that's okay?

Hmmm, get a business license tomorrow - check; find a video camera - check; hmmm? Don't mind me, I'm off to exercise me some free speech and line my pockets, too!

[NoNothing]

59. Yeah, I guess

It doesn't get you out of prison for murder, of course, so, you know, act accordingly.

[DeSwiss]

5. K&R

"Roberts said the law could be read to allow the prosecution of the producers of films about hunting." http://www.startribune.com/nation/91594759.html">*

[jmowreader]

6. These videos should have been treated like child pornography

Child pornography is illegal largely because the process of making it causes irreparable harm to the children. It's banned no matter where it was made--if you were to go to a place where the age of consent was nine and make a video of two teenagers, it would be illegal everywhere child porn is illegal, and it should be illegal.

How exactly can you make a pit bull fight video without causing irreparable harm to the animals involved? I've never wanted to be in that business, but I have this suspicion those videos don't sell if a dog doesn't get killed in them. Plus pit bull fighting is a felony crime in all 50 states. If it's illegal to fight dogs, it certainly must be illegal to make videos of doing it...so why isn't it illegal to sell videos of it?

I wonder though...how can we use this ruling to overturn the law against owning marihuana? If you can sell the product of an illegal activity (gotta fight dogs to make videos of them doing it) and you can possess the product of this illegal activity, then we have a perfectly illegal activity (growing marihuana--I'm using the old spelling because the law does) that harms far fewer pit bulls than does the staging of pit fights. So obviously if it's illegal to allow the ownership of the results of THAT illegal activity, it should also be legal to sell and to own the results of the crime of Marihuana Growing.

[anigbrowl]

37. Well no

How exactly can you make a pit bull fight video without causing irreparable harm to the animals involved?

In this particular case, the defendant had made and sold a video which included footage of a dog fight shot in Japan in the 1960s (which incidentally did not depict any serious injuries), and then offered his commentary on the fighting ability of the dogs involved. So to answer your specific question: there's no proof that irreparable harm took place. Nor is it possible that this video, made in the US ~35-40 years later, could have been a cause of any irreparable harm that took place back then.

how can we use this ruling to overturn the law against owning marihuana

Forget about it. No precedent would apply to the situation you describe - although it could apply to photographs or videos depicting the cultivation or use of marijuana.

The opinion goes into considerable detail about why this is so different from a case of child porn.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf

[customerserviceguy]

55. There's a problem with your comparison

There are circumstances where it is legal to kill animals (and not always quickly) such as the hunting example used by Chief Justice Roberts. There are no circumstances where it is permissable to depict children involved in sex acts.

There will always be questionable activities involving animals, as to whether or not they constitute cruelty under the laws, being able to distribute videos of such activities helps those who are on the fence about such behavior to decide more firmly which side they're on. I cannot think of a similar situation involving children.

[Kber]

8. Their complaint was that the law was written too broadly

for example, the guy who was convicted was promoting dog fights. But what if you used the same video to develop a documentary about the evils of dog fighting?

Under the law as it was written, either person could go to jail.

I'm not in favor of crushing small animals by any means, but the law, as written,could be used in unintended ways and needs to be tightened up.

[X_Digger]

9. I agree with the court.

Much as I trust our current administration, I can't say the same for admins to come.

Imagine some future administration charging PETA for making documentaries about animal abuse- technically, that would have been fair game under this law.

(And I'm saying this as a guy with a house full of rescue dogs.)

[liberal N proud]

10. The SCOTUS is so fucking out of touch with reality

They all need to be thrown out and start over.

:wtf: :nuke:

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[superduperfarleft]

33. This.

All these kneejerks worrying about the fluffy wittle kittens fail to realize that a law this vague could be used to outlaw the PETA investigations that they howl over as they're picking a hamburger from their teeth.

Not to mention this is third damn thread on this today, and still no one has managed to calm down.

[harun]

34. Do you even know the law that was struck down?

No.

If you do link to it.

[superduperfarleft]

35. Here.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000048----000-.html

It's already been linked in the THREE OTHER THREADS on this ruling.

[harun]

65. Arguments not matching up with reality of the law.

For example, I see the following arguments:

Argument: "This would prohibit hunting videos"

Relevant portions of the law:

(a) Creation, Sale, or Possession.— Whoever knowingly creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) Exception.— Subsection (a) does not apply to any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.

Would not a hunting video be excluded by the exceptions in section (b) (educational, journalistic, artistic)?

Argument: "A video depicting the cruelty of animals to garner support against these actions would also be forbidden"

Again wouldn't section (b) allow that. It would clearly be for educational and/or political value? Would probably also be non-profit?

[X_Digger]

66. Do you want the government making that distinction?

Do you trust future administrations?

"Oh that? That's not serious education or art."

[harun]

68. Why would the gov't make the distinction, wouldn't it be the courts making

the distinction at trial?

[X_Digger]

69. I was using "government" as shorthand..

You'd be leaving it up to the Cop, the DA / county prosecutor, and the Judge.

The government should not be in the business of determining what is "serious art/etc".

Would you leave that judgment up to, let's say, that nutty sheriff Arpaio in AZ or the nutty AG that advised the AZ legislature that it was okay to demand people's papers?

And the 'whose judgment?' question is only half of it, from my perspective. The other half is the 'it was legal where it was filmed, but isn't legal where sold' angle. That's lowering the bar to the most restrictive jurisdiction. Doesn't work that way for other first amendment topics like pornography, why should it apply here?

[Unvanguard]

36. I read the decision. It was decided wrongly. Alito was right, though he didn't go far enough.

Depictions of illegal conduct for commercial gain is inseparable from incentivizing the illegal conduct itself, especially when the illegal conduct is as clandestine and as hard to prosecute as "crush videos" and the like are.

[anigbrowl]

38. I guess you missed the observation that it would criminalize video of legal conduct too

One example provided was that hunting is illegal in DC, and on that basis the law would have criminalised the possession or sale of video showing legal hunting activity that took place elsewhere.

[Unvanguard]

67. As Justice Alito pointed out, that was an unnecessarily overbroad reading of the statute.

It was clear from the legislative record that there had been no intention to restrict hunting, and the statute was built in with enough exceptions to allow them to interpret it that way.

[anigbrowl]

70. And overbroad interpretations happen all the time

The legislative record is irrelevant: what matters is the text that was actually voted into law. It should be rewritten. the purpose of the bill is a worthy one, but the actual result is a legal swiss cheese.

[Unvanguard]

74. In general, yes, but not here.

I mean, there's effectively no chance that the government would prosecute someone selling a hunting video with this statute. And if the court had interpreted the statute narrowly to avoid constitutional problems, that interpretation would be controlling.

[anigbrowl]

76. i guess we'll have to disagree

Hunting videos are sort of an extreme example but I do think loosely defined statutes are often misconstrued as time goes by.

[xchrom]

13. Recommend - I think this is the saddest thing I'll read all week. 8 to 1? Nt

[greiner3]

15. The videos only sold because there was a market for them;

If you remember back in the day, there was a market for snuff films (hint: people died) and there was less outrage over that than there is here. Grow up people.

BTW, my college major is in animals. I'm a Darwinist, I live a green philosophy and I abhor this practice. But the world will go on and a few of the quadrillions of beings on this planet will be exploited by people who want to make a buck; whether we like it or not.

[onehandle]

17. Snuff films do not exist.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/snuff.asp

These animal fetish films, do.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. Three Guys, One Hammer

[paulsby]

32. i remember you have been taken in by mythology

no credible evidence has been found that snuff films were ever a problem

they are a myth right up there with the wild west

recall the issues about cannibal holocaust when it came out. quite funny, actually

[GreenPartyVoter]

18. I hope there won't be an uptick in the making of those videos, but if there are I hope all the

people involved in the making thereof are prosecuted for animal cruelty. (Not sure what we can do for any that come from overseas, though. :( How would we deal with that?)

[X_Digger]

20. The law struck down here..

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000048----000-.html

[roody]

21. No animal rights for you liittle kittens.

What's next Court? Snuff movies with humans?

[customerserviceguy]

56. It's against the law in the US

for a religious court to stone someone to death for adultery. Should it be illegal to distribute video of sharia courts doing just that in Saudi Arabia?

[NoNothing]

60. That is a great analogy

Hope you don't mind if I borrow it.

[customerserviceguy]

62. You are more than welcome to it

While I'm troubled by animal abuse, and by the sickos who get their jollies from it, I respect the First Amendment. When four progressive Justices and four conservative Justices agree that this law goes too far, I think that says something.

[nyy1998]

22. Wow, that sexual fetish thing sounded extremly disturbing.

I don't think you could blame the intention of the original law, maybe the scope of it.

[defendandprotect]

23. removed by poster --

[Democat]

25. What about child abuse?

Would they apply the same standard?

[anigbrowl]

39. No. there is already case law addressing that issue. nt

[rollin74]

27. will child porn laws be struck down then?

there are already laws against molesting and raping children

would this court consider the videos as free speech??

[X_Digger]

28. Nope, read the decision. n/t

[ebbie15644]

53. Snuff films

I guess is legal

[X_Digger]

54. No more so than before this ruling.

This case concerns (and is limited to) a law that a) put the government in a position to judge what has "serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value" and it based breaking the law on the legality of the act not on where the act occurred, but where the material was sold.

Please, read the ruling- http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf

And the law (it's less than a page.)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000048----000-.html

[paulsby]

29. there was extensive discussion with good legal cites

of this issue at volokh.com a ways back

good decision

[humbled_opinion]

42. Disgusting and disturbing

Anyone on this forum that agrees with the court should be removed as a Progressive the most progressive view expressed was the one by Alito and he didn't go far enough.

[humbled_opinion]

43. Justices cite free speech in striking down animal-cruelty law

Source: LA Times

Reporting from Washington
The Supreme Court struck down on free-speech grounds Tuesday a federal law that made it a crime to sell videos or photos of animals being illegally killed or tortured.

In a 8-1 ruling, the justices overturned the conviction of a Virginia man who sold dog-fighting videos.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., speaking for the court, said free-speech rights do not turn on whether the speech is desirable or has social value.

"The 1st Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh the costs," Roberts said.

He also said the law was too broad and could allow for prosecutions for selling photos of out-of-season hunting, for example.


Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-animals-20100421-4,0,2371988.story

---

8-1, This makes me sick, nothing progressive about this SCOTUS. The lone dissenter was Alito, and I find myself 100 percent in agreement with his view that this was a valuable statute that was enacted not to suppress speech, but to prevent horrific acts of animal cruelty.

Where is the justice?

[NoNothing]

44. If you want to prevent cruelty

Then you ban cruelty. You don't ban depictions of cruelty.

[humbled_opinion]

45. Cruelty is banned and is a crime

basically what the courts are saying is that your videoing the cruelty is protected free speech, what would they say if this was child porn the viedographer claimed first ammendment rights to film such?

[NoNothing]

46. They would say that human children

Have rights that are violated by exploiting them in child pornography, and that the harm of these rights violations is large enough to outweigh the interest in free speech. But animals aren't human children and while they have laws protecting them, they don't have civil rights and don't really suffer from the exploitation of being filmed.

[paulsby]

48. excellent post

sounds like you have actually read the case. good job

[mbperrin]

51. So if the animal is crushed and killed, they didn't suffer?

And allowing these depictions to be sold for money does not encourage the behavior?




But we've gotta see those precious hunting videos!!!!




Don't know why, if they can't get it up, they just don't figure out it's not meant to be up......

[humbled_opinion]

61. So animals don't suffer?

but I will play your silly comparison games, ok next up sexual beastiality it is a crime like cruelty and is a crime to produce video and imagery of....

So this doesn't fit with your example of upholding this seriously flawed decision.

[anigbrowl]

47. read existing threads, and read the decision. nt

[humbled_opinion]

49. Justices cite free speech in striking down animal-cruelty law

This thread has been combined with another thread.

Click here to read this message in its new location.

[Demstud]

57. I'm confused, what was he convicted of?

I've seen two stories on this. The one linked to says he made the videos... the other one I saw said he was distributing videos made legally overseas.

[flvegan]

63. He made the videos by compiling footage from (largely) overseas and selling them.

[Ter]

71. In Alito's dessent, he said:

"The animals used in crush videos are living creatures that experience excruciating pain. Our society has long banned such cruelty," he said. The courts, he said, have "erred in second-guessing the legislative judgment about the importance of preventing cruelty to animals."

I hate to say it, but I've never agreed with him more. He said it magnificently.

[DatManFromNawlins]

77. Where is "preventing cruelty to animals" enumerated in the Constitution?

Documenting the truth is as important as speaking it, otherwise the truth ceases to exist.

[melm00se]

73. the courts

acted properly here.

It boils down to "trust".

Do you trust the government to use the law for what it is written and not try to finagle it's use in other situations?

Maybe you trust the current administration but how about the previous one? or a future one?

Laws transcend the administration that enacted them and tend to stick around for a loooooong time and pop up at the most inconvenient times. Better to kick this law to the curb and make Congress go back and do it right than have it pop up 10 years from now being used to close down a documentary that some government ass-hat has deemed as not meeting the "serious" requirement.