Legal News

High Court Shoots Down Animal-Cruelty Law

By Ashby Jones

It’s one of those arguments that make even the most fervent free-speechers flinch a little bit — does a First Amendment right attach to videos that show graphic violence against animals?

Frankly, we can’t imagine who would want to watch such a video — or, further, who would want to make such a thing. And we’d bet the justices all feel the same way.

Nevertheless, the high court on Tuesday struck down the law aimed at banning videos that show graphic violence against animals, saying it runs afoul of the First Amendment. Click here for the early AP story; here for the opinion; here for good background on the case from Scotusblog’s ScotusWiki.

The ruling, the result of an 8-1 vote, threw out the criminal conviction of Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Va., who was sentenced to three years in prison for videos he made about pit bull fights.

The law was enacted in 1999 to limit Internet sales of so-called crush videos, which appeal to a certain sexual fetish by showing women crushing to death small animals with their bare feet or high-heeled shoes.

The videos virtually disappeared once the measure became law, the government argued.

But Chief Justice John Roberts (pictured), writing for the majority, said the law goes too far, suggesting that a measure limited to crush videos might be valid.

In dissent, Justice Samuel Alito said the harm animals suffer in dogfights is enough to sustain the law.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on April 20, 2010 (boomark / email).