A First Amendment case was recently argued before the United States Supreme Court that has great significance for the well-being of animals. United States v. Stevens has received considerable national attention, including being the subject of a column by George Will last week. The case focuses on the constitutionality of the federal Depiction of Animal Cruelty Law. Robert Stevens, a longtime participant in the barbaric world of dogfighting was convicted under this law for videos he made and sold depicting horrific dog fights, many of which were filmed in Japan to avoid US laws. Stevens’ lawyers made the preposterous claim that he is a “documentarian” in filming this torture. His conviction under the Depiction of Animal Cruelty Law was struck down by the appellate court on First Amendment grounds. We now await the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The Depiction of Animal Cruelty Law was enacted in 1999 by Congress in order to address the growing industry at that time of “crush videos.” Those are depraved video depictions of women crushing or impaling puppies, kittens and other small animals under stiletto healed shoes or bare feet in order to titillate the sort of people for whom the word “disgusting” was created. The law has significantly diminished the crush video trade in the intervening years since it was adopted. The law is now being used to address videos portraying animal fights that would be felonies in any state in the union.
The challenge to the law argues that these depraved representations of torture should be protected free speech under the First Amendment. The suggestion that this violent and abusive conduct should be protected under our Constitution is horrifying. Rights under the First Amendment are far from unlimited. Pornography and depictions of child abuse and other sorts of perverted behaviors may be suppressed because of the damage they do to our society. Such should be the case with crush videos and dog fighting videos. If not, then people could engage in the felonies of animal cruelty or of dog fighting and, if they are not caught, make money off of the sale of videos of the abuse.
I have read in several news reports, as well as the George Will column, that Stevens supposedly “opposes” dogfighting. This is ridiculous. Stevens has been a significant player in the underworld of dogfighting for many years. He literally wrote the book on dogfighting since his tome “Dogs of Velvet and Steel” serves as the dogfighting training manual. While it is inconceivable that he opposes dogfighting, it is of no significance whether he does or not. Dogfighting is a felony in all 50 states. Society has spoken on the issue and has spoken clearly. Depictions of brutal felonies debase our society and should not be permitted.
The United States Solicitor General, supported by briefs filed by 26 state Attorneys General including Virginia’s own, argued that the law should be upheld. If it is not, the result for animals will be dreadful. Not only may we expect to see a return to the widespread creation and sale of crush videos but the underworld of dog fighting will be benefitted. George Will did get it right in his column when he said that one cannot lower one's opinion of the human race far and fast enough to keep up with the examples that dogfighters and other animal sadists offer us.
Will be an interesting decison when SCOTUS releases it.
I have no use for DOG FIGHTING for Sport.
I have no use for DOG FIGHTING VIDEO's.
JMHO
Posted by: Dougie K. | October 20, 2009 at 11:59 AM