Supreme Court to Hear Animal Cruelty Case
posted by: Sharon Seltzer 286 days ago
Here is a question for you to think about. Does the prosecution of a filmmaker violate his First Amendment rights of free speech, if the subject of his documentaries depicts animal cruelty?
This question is paraphrased a bit, but it is the issue that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear later this year in a controversial case of animal cruelty that was overturned by a Philadelphia appeals court. Their answer will have a great impact on the future welfare of animals.
The case began when a filmmaker named Robert Stevens sold videos of dog fights to federal agents in 2004. Stevens owns a business called Dogs of Velvet and Steel and is a published author and documentary filmmaker. His lawyers claim he sells “informative materials about dog handling and equipment for pit bulls.”
He has produced three films. His first is called “Catch Dogs and Country Living” which is advertised as a training film for hunting dogs. It shows humans being cruel to animals in the name of training while Stevens narrates about proper techniques. One particularly gruesome scene depicts a pit bull attacking the jaw of a domestic farm pig.
The second and third films are titled, “Pick-A-Winna: A Pit Bull Documentary” and “Japan Pit Fights.” Both claim to be historical documentaries about pit bull dogs. The video says it shows, “What made our breed courageous and the intelligent breed that it is.” The films are filled with graphic dog-fighting scenes; enough violence that authorities decided to arrest Stevens.
The arrest was made using a law passed in 1999 called the Depiction of Animal Cruelty Act. It banned the creation, sale or possession of material depicting animal cruelty. This successful Act has helped authorities crack down on dog-fighting rings. And it also helped to almost completely wipe out the horrific industry of “animal crush videos.” The 1999 Act has saved the lives of thousands of pets.
A federal jury convicted Stevens of violations of the Depiction of Animal Cruelty Act in 2005. But late last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that the law was unconstitutional. They agreed the case against Robert Stevens obstructed his First Amendment Rights of free speech.
Thankfully, the Solicitor General would not let this case go and he and the Humane Society of the United States petitioned to have the U.S. Supreme Court review it. It is rare that a case on animal cruelty is heard, but the highest court in the country agreed last week to examine the overturned case.
Stevens’ lawyers say that his videos should have the same First Amendment test and protection that pornography has. But animal welfare groups protest that torturing, maiming and killing innocent animals in the name of entertainment or “instructional material” were not the intent of the free speech amendment.
Furthermore, to point out that Robert Stevens’ documentary business was a ruse for animal cruelty videos, reports show that he regularly advertised his material in an underground magazine known for promoting dog-fighting called the Sporting Dog Journal.
Stevens’ case will be heard this fall and it is sincerely hoped the Supreme Court will return his conviction and stop his “documentary” business permanently.
Read more: animal welfare, animal cruelty, Supreme Court, dog fighting
comments
here we go again anytime you want to do something immorale just stand on the 1st amendment,we are really getting carried away with it,it was never set up for the abuse its taking.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
I agree with Frances S. This man was profiting from the sale of these videos, not gathering evidence for a trial.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
I pray to God that they can not use the First Amendment in order to promote these disgusting videos and more cruelty to defenseless animals!!
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
The only reason these dog fighting videos should ever be viewed is when they are being used in court to put the ass away for being so cruel to animals!!!!!!!
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Samantha Kowalsky - Stevens was not "supplying valuable evidence" to federal agents. Undercover agents purchased these videos from Stevens just as any other customer of his could do.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
So I guess if someone wants to show the horrors of children being used for sex they should be able to film children being raped in order to have proof that they can then sell the films to government agents?
And what about all the videos of all those animals being tortured that were not sold to government agents but to people who wanted to learn how to abuse and train pit bulls to kill?
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
I think the motive is relevant. Is someone using videos of animal cruelty to enrich themselves, or to expose the cruelty itself. That applies to any exploitive situation.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
If the activities depicted on the tapes took place in a jurisdiction in which the activities are legal, then this is a first amendment issue. And perhaps they should be used to promote the cause of banning animal fighting.
If the activities on the tapes took place in the United States, or another nation in which it is illegal, then the tapes should be used as evidence in prosecuting the crimes.
Going after the film-maker in this way is probably going to be counter-productive.
And remember, the first amendment exists to protect unpopular speech.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Or maybe this article's fine, it's just all of you who are mis-interpreting it. It's hard to say. Hope you know what I mean though; the wording is vague on a few points. Vague enough that if you think hard enough, it might not be insinuating what you all seem to think.
I don't know for sure, and I don't have the time to do my own research unfortunately. But I hope you all think about the points I pointed out that it does bring up, that that guy could possibly actually be intending to fight AGAINST animal cruelty, by appearing to promote it but then just revealing the ugly truth, to teach a lesson to those who actually need it most.
Wish I knew for sure, but please, don't convict this guy unless you KNOW EXACTLY what he was doing. You could be destroying an ally rather than an enemy.
It's not us good animal-protectors who need to see cruelty in action, after all; we already know it's wrong. Educating those who don't know how terrible it is, THAT is the way to nip it in the bud and stop the horrible behavior from happening, IF it's done right.
Once more, wish I knew for sure, would need other sources and quotes and stuff for that to happen, and I lack the time. Gotta go to work.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Depending on what details are missing, I think this article might be misleading, and missing the WHOLE point. Did you guys see that?
Selling these to FEDERAL AGENTS.
In other words, supplying VALUABLE EVIDENCE of what to look for when they investigate animal cruelty. To understand so they can make proper arrests and take proper actions.
If it becomes illegal... then it would become illegal for any video evidence of a busted cruelty case, to be made and thus presented to the courts. Can you imagine how hard it would be for them to convict to the extent they should, if they don't even see what the poor animals go through?
There needs to be conditions surrounding these things, yes. This is like the fine line between hate crimes and free speech, always a blurred line...
Another thing, quoting a bit...
"...reports show that he regularly advertised his material in an underground magazine known for promoting dog-fighting called the Sporting Dog Journal."
What better way to prevent dog-fighting, than to show potentials what kind of horrible things happen in the ring? They're the ones who need to see and know how terrible the practice is so they don't do it. It looks like a bait-and-switch to me, where he makes it look like it's pro-dog-fighting, but then when you watch, you're horrified and change your mind about starting it up.
I don't know if it's the case or not, but you catch my drift right? We need more info before we jump to conclusions.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Facebook account:
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.
1129254