By MARK SHERMAN Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court is hearing arguments Tuesday in a case that is shaping up as a major fight over free speech rights and shines a spotlight on discomfiting videos depicting pit bull fights and other acts of animal cruelty.
The Obama administration is asking the court to reinstate a 10-year-old law that bans the production and sale of the videos. A federal appeals court struck down the law and invalidated the conviction of Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Va., who was sentenced to three years in prison for videos he made about pit bull fights.
Stevens noted in court papers that his sentence was 14 months longer than professional football player Michael Vick's prison term for running a dogfighting ring.
Animal rights groups, including the Humane Society of the United States and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and 26 states have joined the administration in support of the law. The government says videos showing animal cruelty should be treated like child pornography, unentitled to any constitutional protection.
Stevens says he also opposes animal cruelty, including dog fighting. But he argues that the government should not be able to jail someone for making films that are not obscene, inflammatory or untruthful. Free speech groups, the National Rifle Association, hunters' organizations and book publishers and sellers say the law threatens First Amendment freedoms.
The NRA and hunters' groups say the law could be used against the makers of hunting videos, although the law's main sponsor, Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Calif., has said it is not intended to apply to depictions of hunting.
When Congress passed the law and then-President Bill Clinton signed it in 1999, lawmakers were especially interested in limiting Internet sales of so-called crush videos, which appeal to a certain sexual fetish by showing women crushing to death small animals with their bare feet or high-heeled shoes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
How sad it is in our society that we have to try to pass laws preventing people from producing videos and displaying animal cruelty. Other people don't have to watch. Then there wouldn't be a market for this.
ReplyDeleteAnimals however, last I checked, are not covered by any Constitutional Rights. People are! Activists might not like it, but even stupid people have rights. Like the NRA says, you can't start picking and choosing who can video animal situations, and who can't. That's what I think. It will just lead to more court cases.
I agree Susan! I also wonder if two stray dogs just happened to cross paths and began to fight if it would be illegal to record it? And how is it that this man was sentenced to a longer jail time for taping animals fight than someone got from making dogs fight. This isnt fair at all. I dont agree to dog fights but i dont agree with this trial either.
ReplyDeleteI also agree. Although I don't agree with the posting of such videos, according to the Constitution, Stevens has every right to post them. If he himself is not responsible for the dog fighting then he cannot be held on criminal charges.
ReplyDeleteYes animals are not protected by any Constitutional Amendments but many states have laws against animal cruelty. For many states it is a felony-level offense. I assume that the these acts are filmed for the purposed of distribution for profit, via internet or by other means. Since animal cruelty is an illegal offense shouldn't there be laws against the distribution of video depicting an illegal act? Therefore, perhaps the person video taping these acts could be cosidered aiding and abetting. Would that be considered an encouragement of illegal activities?
ReplyDelete