Should videos depicting dogfights and the killing of small animals be viewed not as animal cruelty, but as expressions of free speech?
This coming fall the U.S. Supreme Court will decide just that, as they review "whether a federal law outlawing the sale of graphic videos of animal cruelty amounts to a violation of free-speech rights."
In 1999, the federal government passed a law (Public Law 106-152) that makes it illegal to "create, sell, or possess videos depicting animal cruelty with the intention of profiting financially from them." In the past, this law has been used for prosecuting dog fighting videos, yet the impetus behind first passing the law was to stop the production of "crush videos." Crush videos are videos that "cater to fetishists who gain sexual gratification from watching women torture and kill small animals by stepping on them." In these videos, "women, often in high-heeled shoes, impale and crush to death puppies, kittens and other small animals...," and, if that isn't terrible enough, "The cries and squeals of the animals, obviously in great pain, can also be heard in the videos."
In 2004, the law was used to prosecute Robert Stevens, a Virginia man who sold videos of pit bulls attacking other dogs. Last summer however, a federal appeals court reversed Stevens' conviction on the grounds the video was an expression of his free speech. Thankfully, at the request of the federal government, the Supreme Court recently agreed to review this court's ridiculous ruling that "the depictions at issue are 'protected speech' and that preventing animal cruelty is 'not a compelling state interest.'"
In my opinion, the very idea that videos glorifying animal cruelty could be considered an "expression of free speech" is both disturbing and ludicrous. These videos do not depict fake events -- the animals' pain and suffering are actually taking place and result in death. This is what is being filmed and sold for sexual "entertainment" and profit! How can we condone such violence and cruelty and still consider ourselves "civilized"?
"We wouldn't allow the sale of videos of actual child abuse or murder staged for the express purpose of selling videos of such criminal acts, and the same legal principles apply to despicable acts of animal cruelty," said Wayne Pacelle, President of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). According to HSUS, "Before the law was enacted in 1999, there were some 2,000 crush videos available in the marketplace, selling for $15 to $300 each. Over the last decade, that market all but disappeared. However, since last July, crush videos have proliferated on the Internet in response to the appellate court's ruling."
[Image: Daily Kitten]
Cruelty to Animals: A First Amendment Right?



Check our most impactful articles and see how popular these opinions are with you.
Will others follow in your footsteps? Share your thoughts and ideas for changing the world.



thank you for posting this. I found it to be very useful. I wish people would care more about what happens to animals. They have no voice if it wouldn't be for us.
these videos are sooooo terrible and must be stopped!! absolutely NOT "free speech"!!
Yikes! I didn't know about this issue! Thanks for keeping us informed!