Vidiotaped Cruelty Is Not Free Speech
From Audrey, a contributing author.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects a lot of speech that most of us consider stupid, wrong or even disgusting. But it doesn’t protect child pornography or those who sell it. The rationale is obvious: protecting children from the harm inherent in becoming subjects of pornographic materials is important. There is no literary, scientific, or educational value in child pornography.
Federal law also prohibits the creation, sale, or possession of materials depicting animal cruelty. The catalyst for the passage of this law, Title 18, U.S. Code §48, was to address so-called “crush videos,” which involve the torture and killing of small animals to satisfy a particularly perverted sexual fetish. The statute includes all forms of animal cruelty. It defines animal cruelty as “conduct in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed, if such conduct is illegal under Federal law or the law of the State.” 18 U.S.C. § 48 (c)(1). Note the caveat that the conduct must be illegal under state or federal law – this exempts hunting and other legal activities.
But the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently overturned the conviction of a man prosecuted under that law for selling dog fighting videos. The case is United States v. Stevens, which will be heard by the Supreme Court in the next term, which begins in October.
The government has a strong interest in preventing cruelty to animals and in discouraging desensitization to animal cruelty. Apart from the physical suffering animals are capable of enduring, people who abuse animals frequently abuse children and adults, too. Animal cruelty is strongly linked with domestic violence, child abuse and sexual assault. Prosecution of animal cruelty can be an important tool in responding to people who are or are at risk of becoming a threat to the safety of others. That’s why so many states make animal cruelty not just a misdemeanor, but a felony.
Dog fighting is a brutal, sadistic activity. Dogs used for fighting have their ears cropped and their tails docked, using crude, inhumane techniques. Injuries sustained in fighting can be severe, and they are often left untreated. Although pit bulls are most commonly used, other breeds are fought or used as bait dogs. Bait dogs are used in training to induce aggression; they have no value as a fighter, so their injuries are not treated. Bait dogs can be any breed; their teeth are commonly ground down so they do not injure the valuable fighting dog. Some routinely use stolen pets as bait dogs. As the general public learned from the Michael Vick case, the losing dog is usually left untreated or killed – and it is not uncommon for the loser to be hung, electrocuted, or killed in some other brutal way, as part of the event.
Dog fighting almost always goes hand in hand with other crimes, including illegal gambling, assault, and even homicide. Some dogs used for fighting, but not all, become a danger to humans. Dog fighting is a felony in all 50 states. Forty-five states, including Kansas and Missouri, have more general felony animal cruelty provisions.
The Third Circuit, following some line of reasoning that is not abundantly clear, concluded that it’s ok to punish the actual conduct of animal torture, but depictions of animal torture are protected by the First Amendment – so, violators of the laws against animal cruelty may profit from selling videos and photographs of their illegal activity.
The Third Circuit did compare depictions of animal cruelty with child pornography (and also, inexplicably, attempted to compare the facts in Stevens to a case dealing with the Free Exercise Clause, which is religion), but ultimately declined to rule based on a precedent set in the child pornography ruling, thus leaving the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court should follow its precedent in the child pornography cases and decide that videos or pictures of felonious acts of animal cruelty are not protected speech.
Related Posts:
- New Jersey activists charge pest control company Critter Ridder with animal cruelty for killing squirrel in a trap
- AP: Former KC-area teacher enters plea in porn case
- Iowa Gazette: Central Iowans charged in dog fighting investigation
- CWA Kansas — CWA HELPS SPONSOR BRIEFING ON THE HARMS OF PORNOGRPHY
- K-State Veterinarian Says While Exotic Pets Can Be Great Companions, There Are Health Factors That Can Affect Both The Animal And Humans
Tags: animal cruelty, first amendment, Free Exercise Clause, Third Circuit, United States Constitution, United States v. Stevens
May 20th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
I completely agree with Audrey! Videos and pictures of animal abuse should NOT be protected under the first amendment!It has no social or artistic value, and appeals only to the most depraved individuals in our society. Having worked in the penal system for over ten years, I can tell you that the correlation between violent crimes and previous animal abuse is shocking. This is a fact that most of the public already knows by now. As such, by supporting videos, pictures and the such of animal abuse is no different than supporting training tapes for future violent acts against humans. Respect for living creatures needs to be across the board. The obvious lack of concern for animals by protecting people that produce such garbage shows the lack of concern for human life as well. Those that support such garbage are the same people that probably enjoy a good snuff film too. They deserve no protection under amendments meant to protect and direct our behavior and values!
May 20th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Videos and pictures of animal abuse & torture should NOT be protected under the 1st Amendment it is a prelude to or in addition to cruelty to children, domestic abuse and general lack of respect for life. (I also do not believe child pornography should be protected under the 1st Amendment.) There is absolutely no VALUE whatsoever but only serves to cause harm. When will the Justice system of this land, start to understand free speech doesn’t mean anything and everything should be allowed.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:30 am
It sickens me when people try and justify deviant behavior and hide behind laws that were certainly not originated for that purpose. Deviant, perverse and inhumane treatment of any living thing should not be lawful and certainly the filming and distribution of same should not be protected by any laws. Shame on anyone who tries to justify it. We are commanded to be good stewards of animals and this is certainly not good stewardship. Shame on those who would do harm to animals and call it free speech.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:21 am
Animal abuse on film, in books, or published in ANY way should NOT be protected under the 1st Amendment or any other amendment for that matter. It is just as hideous and sick as child pornography and there should be NO laws that protect those who produce such material…let alone participate in it.
By the way - animal fighting is against the law in 48 states so filming or writing about such “events” for pleasure (?) or educational (?) purposes should also be a felony with severe punishment.
People with so little regard for the lives of animals nearly always have the same level of disregard for people and are a danger to society
May 22nd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
To protect abuse of any type under the first amendment does not support the premise behind this amendment. The right to free speech provides opportunity for American citizens to speak out against the government if they disagree without fear of retribution. It is time to stop criminal behavior from using this amendment as a defense/shield and protect all living beings whether they be human or animals.
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:34 pm
The act of violence against animals is illegal, then so should be, the filming of any such act…. Unless, of course, it is used to report the act and convict the abuser. We protect the criminal in too many ways as it is. As the other responses have said, it is proven that animal abuse leads to child and spousal abuse. Are we going to encourage this with “Free Speech”? I would hope NOT. Videotaping animal abuse only glorifies the act to other sick people who participate in the act, themselves. Abuse should not be glorified…. it should be shut down. And in no way should it ever be included under the law as Free Speech!
June 1st, 2009 at 3:12 pm
This is really sad - Animal abuse is NEVER OK!! I agree 100% with the author. The Third Circuit Court really missed the boat on ths one. Animal abuse is not free speech - it is sad and disgusting.