Justices Weigh Ban on Dog Fight Videos

WASHINGTON (Oct. 6) — Supreme
Court justices, skeptical of a law aimed at
graphic animal cruelty videos, touched
Tuesday on dog fights, bull fights, cock
fights, bow-and-arrow hunting, even a hypothetical
television channel devoted to
human sacrifice. Oh, yes, and freedom of
speech.
The court weighed arguments over 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.
In the end, the justices appeared inclined
to agree that the law is too broad and could,
in some instances, apply to videos about
hunting.
“Why not do a simpler thing?” Justice
Stephen Breyer asked an administration
lawyer. “Ask Congress to write a statute
that actually aims at the frightful things
they were trying to prohibit.”
But the lawyer, Deputy Solicitor General
Neal Katyal, said Congress was careful to
exempt hunting, educational, journalistic
and other depictions from the law. Katyal
urged the justices not to wipe away the law
in its entirety, but to allow courts to decide
on a case-by-case basis whether videos are
prohibited.
When Congress passed the law and 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.
The government said the crush videos
virtually disappeared after the law took effect.
Only three people have been prosecuted
under the law and none relating to crush
videos. Animal cruelty and dog fighting are
illegal throughout the country.
Justice Samuel Alito sounded the most
receptive to the government’s argument.
Alito wondered whether the court should
focus on the potential prosecution of
hunters or, citing a Breyer example, someone
who produces foie gras from a goose.
“Or do we look at what’s happening in the
real world?” he asked Stevens’ lawyer, Patricia
Millett.
Millett said Congress has to be very careful
when restricting speech and must use a
“scalpel, not a buzz saw.”
It was Alito who asked about the human
sacrifice channel, while Justice Anthony
Kennedy chimed in with a scenario involving
the airing of live pit bull fights in movie
theaters, with a $10 charge for tickets.
The questions were intended to test the
limits of First Amendment freedoms — and
the right of Congress to intervene — in matters
that most people would find offensive.
Justice Antonin Scalia was having none
of it. In the area of free speech, Scalia said,
“it’s not up to the government to decide
what are people’s worst instincts.”
Scalia also pointed out that opponents of
animal fighting may feel more free to use
the images to express their views than proponents.
“People who like bull fighting,
who like dog fighting, who like cock fighting
... that side of the debate is entitled to
make its point as forcefully as possible,” he
said.
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, not entitled to 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.
A decision is expected by the spring.
The case is U.S. v. Stevens, 08-769.