One of the most important cases concerning animal rights was presented, October 6, 2009 to the U.S. Supreme Court. Solicitor General Elena Kagan presented a case that will have the justices decide if videos and other depictions of animal torture and cruelty are protected by the First Amendment – right to free speech.
The case is the U.S. v. Stevens. Robert Stevens was convicted of selling videotapes of dog fights that he produced in 2005. He later appealed to a higher court that ruled in his favor. That court also overturned a federal law that had made it illegal to sell or possess depictions of animal cruelty for profit.
The 1999 law was passed by Congress to outlaw the production of videos called “crush videos” which were popular on the Internet.These were sexual-fetish tapes showing kittens and other small animals being crushed to death by women wearing high heels.
If the Supreme Court rules to uphold the conviction of Stevens, the law will be reinstated and animals will once again be protected from people who make money from their suffering.
It seems like it should be an easy decision for the Supreme Court, but since the concept of free speech has come into question everyone from book publishers to movie producers, photographers, artists and journalists have gotten involved.
They have taken animal cruelty out of the equation and replaced it with their own interests that they believe will be damaged if Stevens loses. Even the ACLU has gotten involved.
The New York Times went as far as filing a “brief” in support of Stevens. They said, “The 1999 law imperils the media’s ability to report on issues related to animals.”
Media publications cite that they are concerned that hunting and fishing magazines will be censored and general reporting on animal issues will be limited.
Here are the facts that have led to this big debate.
The HSUS, American Humane Association and 26 state Attorneys General ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and to allow “reasonable regulation of this commercial activity.” They report that Stevens has been involved in the world of dog fighting for many years and advertises his books and tapes in underground dog fighting publications.
Stevens and his lawyers call him a documentary maker who opposes dog fighting.They claim “he is an educator, and his subject is the history and status of pit bulls.” Stevens’ son said his father’s only crime is his lifelong fascination with pit bulls.
The Supreme Court has a lot of information to digest regarding this case and reinstating the 1999 law. Let’s hope they rule on the side of the humane treatment and protection of innocent animals.
Humane Society of Missouri
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may
not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.