In an 8-1 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court’s voted to legalize the sale of videos depicting animal cruelty as entertainment on April 20. Animal rights activists are urging Congress to craft a replacement bill that can pass the Supreme Court’s First Amendment analysis.
The majority said the law was overly-broad, prohibiting certain videos that the Court believes need First Amendment protection.
The case throws out the conviction of Robert Stevens, who sold videos depicting dog fighting, which is illegal in every state. Stevens was convicted under a 1999 law passed to ban the sale of “crush videos,” in which women crushed to death small animals, to satisfy the sexual fetishes of internet customers.
Justice Alito Concerned by Crush Videos
Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said the language of the law went much further, creating “a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth.”
According to BusinessWeek.com, Justice Samuel Alito said the ruling effectively legalized the sale of crush videos and “is thus likely to spur a resumption of their production.” He pointed out that the animals in crush videos “are living creatures that experience excruciating pain.”
Most frequently kittens are tortured and killed in the videos, although other small animals are also used. Typically the animals are burned with cigarettes, nailed to the floor, or hurt in some other manner before being killed by women in high heeled shoes.
In a press release issued April 20, Dr. Elliot M. Katz, a veterinarian and president of In Defense of Animals, said that only Justice Alito "got it right."
“This law was intended to prohibit some of the most depraved forms of animal cruelty, and it worked," said Katz.. "The Court’s decision tells young people that vicious cruelty like dog fighting can be fun, entertaining, and profitable. This goes against the efforts of so many humane societies and millions of caring people across the country.”
Activists Urge Congress to Act
Animal activists nationwide are calling on Congress to quickly pass a law prohibiting only crush videos.
"Then we can argue later about broadening that to include other depictions of extreme animal cruelty,” said Dr. Katz. “But we can’t help asking why the Court felt dog fighting videos need more protection than crush videos."
Twenty-six states and millions of Americans agreed with the Obama and Bush Administrations that videos depicting animal cruelty for entertainment should be treated like child pornography, he added.
Animal rights activists joined Justice Alito in expressing concern that this decision is leading to a return of crush videos.
“Already, following the Third Circuit’s decision that brought this case before the Supreme Court, crush videos have returned to the internet,” said Dr. Katz.
Katz continued to say that cases like this have immediate consequences that can only lead to more cruelty and abuse.
"Real animals will suffer and die in horrific ways because the Court has declared that animal cruelty and suffering can be sold as entertainment," Katz added. "This case is a huge step backward for the evolution of a humane society.”
Sources
Joy Richardson - Joy Richardson has worked as a reporter, photographer, and editor for several local newspapers in the Atlanta area. Her articles have been ...
Join the Conversation