Striking Down Depiction of Animal Cruelty

The law states:

(a) Creation, Sale, or Possession. - Whoever knowingly creates, sells, or posses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of place that depiction on 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.

Why the law should be struck down:

• The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to free speech.

• There is no compelling government interest at stake.

• Animal rights do not supersede fundamental human rights and this piece of legislation infringes upon the free speech right of those possessing the films.

• When the Supreme Court decides a case they rarely find a basis for content-based restrictions, except in the cases for the well-being of humans (i.e. child pornography).

• There is not a sufficient enough link between the legislation and the compelling interest of preventing cruelty to animals.

• Animals are sentient beings, in the case of child pornography; a person not only goes through the harm of the experience but has to have the knowledge of their image being fully available for the public to see. One cannot contend that animals continually suffer from their image being available to the general population. The act on film does not prolong the suffering of the animal.

• There is insufficient evidence that shutting down this market of "crush videos" will hinder the continuance of cruelty to animals.

• The prosecuting of possession of animal cruelty videos is not a sufficient means to prosecuting that actual act of animal cruelty.

Dissenters:

• Laws have existed since 1641. - Laws in this country are continually changing and overturned by proper judicial review. Actions such as abortion have become legalized through the case of Roe v. Wade and other previously criminal actions have become legal due to the fact that the restrictions infringe upon the basic human rights. In this case the right to the freedom of speech.

• Depictions of animal cruelty are related to the act of animal cruelty. - The market for videos of such cruelty has previously and still had no effect on the actual act of animal cruelty. Even before video was available to the general public animal cruelty still took place for entertainment of those in the ring of observers present. The majority of animal cruelty is not depicted through film.

• This should fall under the same restrictions as "fighting words", defamatory speech, obscenity, and child pornography. - All of these things fall outside of the umbrella of the First Amendment and they all effect humans, not animals.

The case:

• Robert Stevens was convicted of selling and advertising animal cruelty videos under this legislation for selling 3 videos to undercover Pennsylvania police officers.

• He was sentenced to 37 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised probation.

• He was heard narrating and commentating on the videos.

• Stevens contends that his videos were educational, showing the right and wrong ways to train pit bulls and other dogs for hunting.

• Stevens contends that he is being unfairly judged by a society that routinely hunts and kills innocent animals for recreation. The line between animal cruelty and the proper use of animals is impossible to define. If in fact this law is upheld then in fact hunting videos should be outlawed as well, for it to shows the depiction of the killing and cruelty towards innocent animals. You cannot justify one without the other.