Animal Cruelty to become Unprotected Speech?

(©1999 Associated Press)

by Daniel Cailler

Tony Mauro, legal correspondent for The First Amendment Center, wrote that the Supreme Court agreed "to consider reviving a 10-year old federal law which makes it illegal to produce, sell, or possess depictions of animal cruelty created for commercial gain."

If the Court votes in favor of the proposed law, depictions of animal cruelty would lose first amendment protections, like that of fighting words, obscenity and child porn.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals turned down the law, last year, because they said the government interest in the proposed ban was not "of the same magnitude as protecting children." The appeals court also said the law was too broad, despite an exception for depictions that have "serious religious, political, scientific, education, journalistic, historical or artistic value."

Footage of a bullfight would be illegal if this law passes, despite the sport's immense popularity.

Robert Stevens, a documentary maker in Virginia, was sentenced to 37 months in prison for videos he had made showing the right and wrong way to raise pit bulls, according to an article published by the Associated Press. His video contained dog fight footage in Japan, among other scenes. Despite his claim the videos were educational, he was found guilty, but then the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the conviction. Stevens had originally argued that the law was "viewpoint discrimination,' since the same footage would be legal in the hands of dogfight protestors.

• Is there enough of a compelling Gov't interest (of the same magnitude as protecting children, for example) with which possessing/distributing depictions of animal cruelty could be made illegal?
• If a particular type of speech is banned for some, shouldn't it be banned for all? Images of child pornography couldn't be used in an anti-child-porn campaign, despite its good intentions, so how could the same footage of animal cruelty be legal in the hands of an activist yet illegal in the hands of other people?