If you love animals as much as I do, it’s extremely difficult not to get upset about the Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday in the case of United States v. Stevens. The case was a constitutional challenge to Section 48, the federal law that criminalized the sale of depictions of animal cruelty, notably dogfighting videos and “crush” videos showing small animals mutilated by high heels to gratify a human sexual fetish.
Sadly for the animals and the people who care about their welfare, by a vote of 8 to 1, the Court held that the law violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment and is therefore unenforceable. The decision threw out the criminal conviction of Robert Stevens, who was sentenced to 37 months in federal prison for making and selling despicably violent videos of dogfights. How clever of Stevens to challenge his sentence on First Amendment grounds: now he’s free to make and sell more sickening “entertainments.”
Justice Samuel Alito Jr. is a dog lover and the lone dissenting vote. He said that the harm animals suffer in dogfights is enough to sustain the law, and that the ruling will probably spur the creation of new “crush” videos, because it has “the practical effect of legalizing the sale of such videos.” Of course, Justice Alito is right.
Key outlets of the mainstream media — the same MSM that almost always gets it wrong whenever animals make the news — wholeheartedly supported invalidating Section 48. They include (surprise!) the New York Times and National Public Radio. Being biased, the MSM, as usual, just couldn’t report this pet story with care. No, they had to pit the “animal rights activists” against the free-speech zealots as if they were hosting, well, a dogfight. Anyone who cares about animals is, in the MSM’s opinion, an “animal rights activist” (read: terrorist). Yet nothing could be further from the truth; Justice Alito is the proof.
The MSM couldn’t be bothered to quote the calm, rational Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), experts on animal cruelty laws; no, they went right to PETA, the ever-controversial group that, despite its often clearheaded arguments, is now, unfortunately, stereotyped in the public’s imagination — with the MSM’s help — as the radical pro-animal fringe. Which means that anything PETA says, no matter how reasonable or compelling, will be neatly dismissed. Minor MSM outlets have the arrogance to register amazement that a conservative — of all people! — should show compassion for animals.
On AOL, Mara Gay wrote:
Meanwhile, some animal rights activists were surprised to find themselves siding with the conservative Justice Samuel Alito Jr. Alito, a dog owner who protested that the purpose of the law was “not to suppress speech, but to prevent horrific acts of animal cruelty.”
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals agreed. In a statement, the often rabidly liberal animal rights organization said it is “not in the spirit of the constitution to allow or encourage gratuitous depictions of torture for sexual gratification or profit.” And, PETA said, “allowing these videos to be distributed can incite harm by encouraging others who are inclined toward violence to engage in cruel and felonious acts — for the camera or otherwise.”
PETA is right, of course, but if its comments are prefaced by Gay’s knee-jerk “rabidly liberal” epithet, what rolling eyeballs will bother to read further? And why should it be so surprising to the MSM when conservatives make animal welfare a priority? Yes, Virginia, there are pro-animal people on both sides of the aisle: Justice Alito was nominated by President George W. Bush; Section 48 was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, but it was introduced in 1999 by Rep. Elton Gallegly of California — a (gasp) Republican.
Those who care about animals often do agree, regardless of political persuasion; basic humane decency is not a partisan issue, it’s bipartisan. Justice Alito cares enough about animals to be the only vote of dissent in this case — does that make him a radical “animal rights activist”? Of course not. He’s a voice of common sense. Now, please listen to another voice of common sense; that of Matthew Liebman, ALDF staff attorney (apologies for the long quote):
I appreciate and sympathize with the anger many people feel about the decision, and I wish the Court’s decision had gone the other way. But I think we owe it to ourselves to avoid feeling anger and despair unnecessarily. And misreading the Stevens case causes unnecessary despair. The real plight of animals is horrific enough without subjecting ourselves to the added stress that results from an alarmist description of the Stevens case. It’s important to honestly assess the case and what it did and did not actually say.
First, the Supreme Court did not hold that committing animal cruelty is protected by the First Amendment. Criminal animal cruelty was illegal before Stevens and it remains illegal after Stevens. The case had almost nothing to do with the legitimacy and enforceability of the local, state, and federal laws that protect animals. Rather, the case focused solely on the government’s ability to prohibit the depictions of cruelty themselves. Someone who abuses animals cannot avoid criminal liability simply by videotaping that cruelty. For example, dogfighters who videotape fights can still be prosecuted under the criminal cruelty laws for dogfighting, even though they can no longer be prosecuted for selling the videos, at least for now. Undoubtedly, Section 48 was an important tool for stopping animal cruelty that was produced for the sole purpose of being sold, and the Court took away that tool. But it did not equate animal cruelty itself with free speech.
Second, the Supreme Court did not hold that crush videos or animal fighting videos are protected by the First Amendment. Instead, the Court specifically reserved that question, holding only that Section 48 as written was too broad and extended to other kinds of speech that are protected. A law that criminalized the commercial creation, sale, or possession of just crush videos or animal fighting videos might still pass constitutional muster, and it is clear that that is the way forward for the animal protection movement. The Animal Legal Defense Fund and other animal protection groups are urging Congress to pass a narrower law that focuses on these extreme forms of animal cruelty.
Third, the Court did not say that preventing animal cruelty is an unimportant goal. The Court could have held that the prevention of animal cruelty is not a compelling government interest, throwing the legitimacy of hundreds of animal protection laws into doubt. In fact, that’s what some of us feared would happen, especially after the lower court based its decision in part on those grounds. A holding from the highest court in the land that animal protection is less than compelling could have been devastating. But the Court did not go that route, despite the clear opportunity to do so.
That’s what an animal lover sounds like — calm, rational, deliberate, with his facts straight as an arrow. The high court’s decision is a setback for animal lovers, to be sure. But now is no time for hysterics; it’s time for calm, rational appeals to Congress to draft new, more targeted legislation that really will put scum like Robert Stevens out of business.
The good news is that Rep. Gallegly is determined to push for new legislation that is more narrowly defined to prohibit “crush videos or other depictions of extreme animal cruelty:”
You are not allowed to cry ‘fire’ in a theater; you are not allowed to possess or distribute child pornography. You shouldn’t be able to create and distribute videos that glorify the senseless killing of defenseless animals.
My original bill passed the House in 1999 on a bipartisan vote of 372-42 and in the Senate by unanimous consent. For 10 years, it shut down the crush video industry. Congress will not allow it to resume to pre-1999 levels.
I am reintroducing a bill I believe is more narrowly tailored to satisfy the Court’s majority and will stop the sale of videos that show the mutilation and torture of animals.
In the meantime, animal-loving Americans can write their representatives urging them to support Gallegly’s efforts. Let’s show our fellow Americans that those of us who care about animals are not rabid radicals; we’re compassionate, rational citizens. We believe animal cruelty is every bit as reprehensible as child pornography. And our voices will be heard.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member