The ruling was 8-1, with Justice Alito the lone dissenter. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority, which can be accessed by clicking here. Roberts found the law was overly broad, and according to Robert Barnes reporting for the Washington Post, Roberts "rejected the government's argument that whether certain categories of speech deserve constitutional protection depends on balancing the value of the speech against its societal costs."
Roberts writes in the opinion:
"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 . . . 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."
The law in question was enacted back in 1999. It forbade selling what are known as "crush videos" which show animals being tortured or "show[s] them being crushed to death by women with stiletto heels or their bare feet," which, according to the Washington Post article, is a sexual fetish.
As Reuters reports, the laws opponents feared it was too broad and vague, which could make illegal videos that show bullfighting and other "blood sports," as well as some documentaries. The majority agreed with this view of the statute.
However, Joan Biskupic of USA Today reports that while the justices struck down the statute, "they specifically said they were not deciding the validity of a law that would target" only crush videos.
Robert Stevens filed the case that came before the high court following his sentence to three years in prison for making videos on pitt bull fighting. The statute did have the support of the Obama administration as well as 26 states and various animal rights groups. The bill's defenders argued the videos in question should be treated by the law like child pornography, "rather than granted constitutional protection."
Alito wrote in his dissent, '"The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it most certainly does not protect violent criminal conduct, even if engaged in for expressive purposes."'
Today First Amendment free speech advocates are likely happy with the ruling, while animal rights groups are certainly disappointed. All 50 states and the District of Columbia have laws banning cruelty to animals. Additionally, there are federal statutes that address animal cruelty.
To read the Washington Post article click here.
To read the Reuters article, click here.
To read the USA Today article, click here.
To learn more about animal welfare laws, court decisions, and regulations, click here to visit the National Agricultural Law Center's Reading Room on Animal Welfare.
Posted: 04/20/10
