The tapes Robert Stevens made and advertised sound hard to watch. Based on reporting by Joan Bisdkupic for USA Today, the tapes show pit bulls fighting hard and trying to tear each other apart. Federal official seized that tapes and indicted Robert Stevens under a ten-year-old law that makes it illegal to sell depictions of animal cruelty. According to USA Today, the law came about in 1999 as a response to “congressional worries about ‘crush’ videos, which typically show women pounding their high heels on small animals and sometimes talking a dominatrix fashion.”Stevens was tried and convicted back in 2005 under this law. Now his appeal to the Supreme Court, which is being argued today, is a test case over whether or not the First Amendment allows depictions of animal cruelty, or is animal cruelty in the same class of picture as child pornography, and therefore can be banded.
“The case pulls the staid high court into the underworld of dogfighting and features a clash of competing societal values: antipathy to animal cruelty vs. the right of free speech. More broadly, it presents a potentially defining moment for how the court regulates pictures of abhorrent conduct. Scores of advocacy groups have lined up on each side of United States v. Stevens.”Free speech groups believe that if the court upholds the conviction and rules on the side of the United States, than any depictions of illegal conduct or deemed highly offensive could be banned too. The free speech groups do not want to see the High Court go down this slippery slope where possibly news reports that show cruelty or illegal conduct could be taken to court.
Advocates on the other side of the argument, like the Humane Society of the United States, (HSUS) “stress that the ban on pictures of animal torture lessens the abuse of animals and promotes public morality.” While dogfighting is already illegal nationwide, the dispute in this case is not about abuse, but about pictures of the abuse. Justice Department attorneys say videos like the one Stevens made promotes animal abuse. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has already struck down the law criminalizing the videos. Twenty-six states are siding with the federal government in this case.
Stevens, who is a long-time pit-bull trainer in Virginia was charged by federal prosecutors based on three of his videos:
Pick-A-Winna, in which Stevens, narrating, invites viewers to guess which pit bull might win a fight; Japan Pit Fights, which offers a ring-side view of matches in Japan; and Catch Dogs and Country Living, which showed how pit bulls are used to hunt, attack and subdue hogs and other animals. In Catch Dogs, upbeat music plays; the two-hour Pick-A-Winna video includes the instrumental music from Fiddler on the Roof.Stevens argues the videos were education and have historical value. One witness for Stevens even testified the “videos were valuable in documenting dogfighting before it became illegal in the USA.”
In a jury trial Stevens contentions were unconvincing and he was found guilty on all three counts and sentenced to 37 months in prison. Stevens has been free during the appeals process. Patricia Millett opens her argument to the Supreme Court, saying, ‘“This case is not about dogfighting or animal cruelty. ... The question here is more fundamental: whether the government can send an individual to jail for up to five years just for making films — films that are not obscene, pornographic, inflammatory, defamatory or even untruthful.”’
Stevens believes federal prosecutors will push for a broad interpretation of the 1999 law so Stevens’ videos are included because they believe they amount to depictions of inhumane treatment of the animals.
Backing Stevens, the National Coalition Against Censorship tells the justices that if the government prevails, Congress could outlaw images that depict acts of terrorism, drug use or torture. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 13 news media organizations have joined the case, concerned about press coverage about animal abuse or other illegal activities that could fall under the disputed law. The Humane Society counters that if the 1999 statute is not upheld, cruelty to animals will rise.
This case will certainly garner a lot of attention from both sides because of the potential precedential impact it will have on future cases involving the 1999 law.
To read the USA Today story click here.
Posted: 10/06/09
