The Supreme Court in United States v. Stevens struck down a 1999 federal law Today in a 8-1 majority. Oddly enough I agree with the lone dissenter Justice Alito on this one...
What was the subject matter? A law aimed at banning videos depicting graphic violence against animals. According to the majority on the court, such a law violates the constitutional right to free speech. I disagree.
The law (18 U. S. C. §48) makes it a crime, punishable with up to five years in prison, to make, sell or possess a depiction of animal cruelty if done for commercial gain. With animal cruelty depiction Congress meant the depiction of a living animal which is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed. The law is not applicable if the depiction has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.
§ 48. Depiction of animal cruelty
(a) Creation, Sale, or Possession.— Whoever knowingly creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) Exception.— Subsection (a) does not apply to any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.
(c) Definitions.— In this section—
(1) the term "depiction of animal cruelty" means any visual or auditory depiction, including any photograph, motion-picture film, video recording, electronic image, or sound recording of conduct in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed, if such conduct is illegal under Federal law or the law of the State in which the creation, sale, or possession takes place, regardless of whether the maiming, mutilation, torture, wounding, or killing took place in the State; and
(2) the term "State" means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
The law was originally enacted in response to so-called "crush videos." These are porn videos which appeal to a fetish by depicting the torture of animals or showing them being crushed to death by women with stiletto heels or their bare feet. The law however was used to prosecute a Virginia native who was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison for making and selling videos about pit bull fighting.
The case came to the Supreme Court because the fedderal district court and the 3rd Court of Appeals differed in their reading of the law. The district court rejected the First Amendment challenge to the law, but the en banc Third Circuit Court struck it down.
Chief Justice Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, stated the federal law was overly broad and violated the First Amendment. The majority rejected the sollicitor-general's argument that the question whether certain categories of speech deserve constitutional protection should depend on a balancing of the value of the freedom of speech against its societal costs.
"The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits," Roberts wrote. "The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it." CJ. Roberts
Roberts stated the court was not passing judgment about whether "a statute limited to crush videos or other depictions of extreme animal cruelty would be constitutional.", leaving the door open for Congress. But this is a severe setback for animal rights.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. as the lone dissenter stated:
"The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it most certainly does not protect violent criminal conduct, even if engaged in for expressive purposes."
I've got to say, on this particular subject matter - animal cruelty - I agree with him. I think the majority overreached here... in fact they are saying that commercial gain from animal cruelty isn't a big deal like for instance child pornography and doesn't merit penalizing. I think that definately is the wrong signal to give.
But still, a matter of caution should be used vis a vis the Alito quote... because by criminilizing certain conduct, the government could under this premise try to penalise other freedom of speech patterns a political majority doesn't like as well... things we might not consider to be cruel...
for more information: SCOTUSBLOG
http://www.scotusblog.com/...
You can find the opinions of Roberts and Alito: http://www.supremecourt.gov/...