Supreme Court

Animal Cruelty Videos Allowed By Supreme Court Ruling

In an 8-to-1 vote, the United States Supreme Court struck down a 1999 animal cruelty law, paving the way for animal cruelty videos to fall under the blanket of First Amendment freedom of speech protection, which includes all things from criticizing the government to extolling the utility of payday loans. Reuters reports that the previous law was intended to prevent the sale of “crush” videos, a disturbing fetish niche depicting the torture and killing of small animals beneath a woman’s high-heeled shoe. The Supreme Court decided that the 1999 law was so broad that it made things such as the sale of some documentaries and bullfighting illegal. Concerned that this could be viewed as government censorship, the Supreme Court struck down the law as invalid under the First Amendment.

Only one is illegal while the other is not between animal cruelty and animal cruelty videos?

Justice John Roberts, whose 20-page opinion expressed the view of the majority regarding animal cruelty vs. animal cruelty videos, wrote that “there is no evidence of a similar tradition prohibiting depictions of such cruelty.” Thus, Robert Stevens of Virginia, who made and sold videos of pitbulls, hogs and wild boards fighting each other may very well have his 2005 conviction in United States v. Stevens, No. 08-769 (still under appeal) overturned. The Supreme Court didn’t agree with the Justice Department Lawyers who suggested that animal cruelty videos need to be treated like child pornography which is not protected under the first Amendment. The lone dissenting voice – Justice Samuel Alito – said “the law could be validly applied to at least two broad categories of expression: crush videos and dog-fighting videos,” according to Reuters.

Inciting lawless action Advocacy

This is what the Supreme Court said about free speech:

“The U.S. Supreme Court has held that government may not prohibit speech that advocates illegal or subversive activity unless ‘such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action’ (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395U.S. 444, 89 S. Ct. 1827, 23 L. Ed. 2d 430 [1969]).”

See how advocacy inciting lawless action isn’t permitted. The common Brandenburg test cases the Supreme Court cites involve situations where politically charged or subversive speech is held to be “mere hyperbole” since they do not connote a threat “intended to be acted on at a definite point in time.” It could be argued that animal cruelty videos involve a filmmaker who is complicit in a clearly illegal act. Why is it filming an event of animal cruelty with the intent of taking credit card orders and deliver not fall outside free speech protection when animal cruelty itself is illegal? It’s no longer a matter of intent once the act has been filmed; the illegal act has occurred. The success of such videos might cause parties to film more videos after developing an audience for these films which might be considered inciting further lawless action.

Obscenity?

This is an area the Supreme Court has had trouble defining clearly over the years. Justice Potter Stewart once said “I know it when I see it,” which didn’t help matters. But there is the Supreme Court’s three-part test to determine obscenity:

• The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that its predominant theme appeals to a “prurient” interest
• It depicts or describes sexual activity in a “patently offensive” manner
• It lacks, when taken as a whole, serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (refers to Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 93 S. Ct. 2607, 37 L. Ed. 2d 419 [1973]).

How to animal cruelty videos and crush videos stack up? The average person likely would not find that either incites sexual desire, but would they appeal to another’s prurient interest. Absolutely; it’s why they’re made in the first place. Both videos would be offensive to the average person. Neither of these videos are literary or overtly political, concerning lack of value. Some people might attribute artistic or scientific value to crush videos or animal cruelty videos. You probably don’t want to know these people.

Article sources

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63J3IO20100420

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=United_States_v._Stevens

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/First+Amendment

Supreme Court