|
Home
Donate
Gift Sponsorships
Volunteer
Employment
Tours
Wish List
Events
Gift Shop
Internships
Pasado's Story
Pasado Newsletter
| |
|
Federal Appeals Court missteps in animal cruelty case
by Lafcadio D |
|
|
|
The
Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a misguided decision striking down a
federal law prohibiting the trafficking of animal cruelty videos |
On July 18,
2008, in the case of United States v. Stevens, the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals issued a misguided decision striking down a federal law
prohibiting the trafficking of animal cruelty videos on the grounds that the law
is an impermissible infringement on free speech. The statute (18 U.S.C. § 48)
prohibited the creation, sale or possession of a depiction of animal cruelty
with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate commerce for
commercial gain. As a result of this decision, the conviction of Stevens—a man
who filmed dogs cruelly and gruesomely fighting each other and pigs—was
overturned. |
|
|
|
|
In finding
this law unconstitutional, the court compared the interest in prohibiting the
depiction of cruelty to animals to child pornography and noted:
while the
Supreme Court has not always been crystal clear as to what constitutes a
compelling interest in free speech cases, it rarely finds such an interest for
content-based restrictions. When it has done so, the interest has–without
exception–related to the well-being of human beings, not animals. When looking
at these cases, as well as the interests at issue in the unprotected speech
categories, it is difficult to see how § 48 serves a compelling interest that
represents a government objective of surpassing importance. |
|
The
government can criminalize dog-fighting and similar cruel conduct and should
also be able to punish those who market video of illegal behaviors
|
The court
clearly felt it was required by Supreme Court precedent to strike down the law,
but there are flaws to this logic. All 50 states prohibit animal cruelty and
there is no question that the government can criminalize dog-fighting and
similar cruel conduct. The government should therefore be able to punish those
who conspire with these criminals and market tapes of this illegal behavior
without offending the Constitution. Moreover, the federal government has broad
powers to regulate the commerce and has outlawed a wide variety of activity,
much of which involves communications. It is common sense that the federal
government should be able to prohibit the filming of animal cruelty and the
marketing of such cruelty in interstate commerce. |
|
Although the
majority of the judges accepted this ruling, there was a strong dissent by three
judges on the court, who stated:
The majority
today declares that the Government can have no compelling interest in protecting
animals from intentional and wanton acts of physical harm, and in doing so
invalidates as unconstitutional a federal statute targeting the distribution and
trafficking of depictions of these senseless acts of animal cruelty. Because we
cannot agree, in light of the overwhelming body of law across the nation aimed
at eradicating animal abuse, that the Government’s interest in ensuring the
humane treatment of animals is anything less than of paramount importance, and
because we conclude the speech prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 48 to be of such
minimal socially redeeming value that its restriction may be affected consistent
with the First Amendment, we respectfully dissent."
|
|
 |
The dissent
correctly points out that the “value” of the speech is to be considered in such
cases, and that the majority failed to account for the lack of communicative
content or protected expression in these tapes. The dissent disagreed that
Supreme Court cases required this law to be struck down and found that it does
not offend free speech rights.
|
|
The United
States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania argued the case on
behalf of the government. Those who disagree with the decision in U.S. v.
Stevens should contact the United States Attorney to urge the government to
request a rehearing or appeal the case to the United States Supreme Court.
If you would like to send your polite and professional comments, the
contact information for that office is:
Mary Beth
Buchanan
United States Attorney – Western District of Pennsylvania
700 Grant Street – Suite 4000
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: 412-644-3500
|
|
|
|
