On the second day of the term, the Supreme Court will hear U.S. vs. Stevens, which deals with whether videos of killing kittens in horrible ways for people with strange fetishes is protected by the First Amendment.
Newsweek's headline sums up the issue perfectly:
Kitty stomping is sickObviously not all expression is protected under the First Amendment (think "fire" in a crowded theater, hate speech, etc.). The test is whether there is a compelling state interest (think kiddie porn, privacy issues in a time of war, etc.) in banning it.
But are depictions of animal cruelty the legal equivalent of child pornography? The Supreme Court will decide.
The Newsweek story notes that all 50 states have animal-cruelty laws, which make the action illegal on those grounds.
But the guy in the case, Robert Stevens, was selling animal-cruelty videos -- a First Amendment issue rather than an animal cruelty issue.
Stevens was selling videos of pit bulls attacking other animals. But the legislation at issue here stems from another form of animal cruelty. From ScotusWiki:
18 U.S.C. § 48 prohibits the knowing creation, sale, or possession of depictions of animal cruelty with the intent to place them in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain. The legislative history for the statute indicates that Congress was concerned about so-called “crush videos,” in which women “inflict[] . . . torture [on animals] with their bare feet or while wearing high heels,” and which appeal to people with a specific sexual fetish; however, the actual text of the statute on its face covers any depiction of animal cruelty as long as the underlying conduct is illegal in the state where the creation, sale, or possession takes place.The law isn't specific to these "crush videos," which means ruling against Stevens here could also make it illegal to distribute videos of bullfighting, right?
So essentially, the Court has this option:
Impose stronger limits on free expression... or condone kitten-stomping.
No comments:
Post a Comment