The constitutionality of depicting animal cruelty in videos is being deliberated by the United States Supreme Court with a decision expected in July.
For those who have not been following the case, Robert Stevens of Virginia was sentenced to 37 months for selling videos of dogfighting. He was prosecuted under a 1999 federal law that prohibits any visual or sound recording “in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed.” These videos were called “crush” videos because they once featured women in stiletto heels “crushing” rats and mice.
Before the high court is whether the prohibitions on such videos constitute suppression of free speech.
In spirited questioning last week, Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the government’s attempt to liken animal cruelty videos with child pornography, which the First Amendment does not protect.
The 1999 federal statute is constitutional say government attorneys because it exempts works with “serious, religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical and artistic value.” More than one justice thought that was little too broad with Justice Stephen Breyer suggesting Congress may want to narrow things down a bit.
Justice Samuel Alito suggested the government could suppress depictions of repugnant or barbaric activities.
I am no lawyer, but what to one is repugnant and barbaric is to what another calls hunting.
The saying goes “I know pornography when I see it.” The high court is correctly telling the federal government to be more specific when it says it knows animal cruelty when it sees it.
