Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on pinterest
Share on linkedin

Supreme Court Weighs Free Speech in Dog Fighting Video Case

supreme_courtDoes anyone know Robert Stevens motives behind these videotapes? Is he a dog lover, working to protect pit bulls? Or is he cashing in on the public’s seemingly unending need for extreme videos? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section.

— Kenn

From FOXNews.com

WASHINGTON — In its second day, the Supreme Court will take up the case of a Virginia man, a self-proclaimed dog lover whose bloody pit bull fighting videos have raised questions on whether free speech protects the sale of horrific scenes of animal cruelty.

Robert Stevens, 69, was originally sentenced to more than three years in prison by a federal jury in Pittsburgh in 2005. His sentence was harsher than that given to disgraced football quarterback Michael Vick for bankrolling a dog-fighting ring.

The 1999 law used in Stevens’ sentencing “prohibits the knowing creation, sale, or possession of a depiction of a live animal being intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed” for commercial gain. But the law stipulates that the material must also lack “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.”

The case centers on a basic fundamental question examining the reach of the First Amendment. Is the law so broad that it also covers some protected speech, thus making it invalid on its face?

A lower appellate court ruled that in fact it was, striking down Stevens’ three year prison sentence.

Stevens has defended himself against charges of animal cruelty, insisting that he is a dog lover who distributes information about pit bulls to educate the public. Conversely, the government defends the decade-old law used to convict Stevens as an effective deterrent to stop animal cruelty and sees Stevens as the type of facilitator and profiteer the law is meant to stop.

The case has made some strange allies. The New York Times joined other media organizations and publishing groups to write a brief to the Court supporting Stevens’ case. The paper is concerned the animal cruelty law is so broadly written that it “imperils the media’s ability” to report on animal issues.

Also in support of Stevens’ argument, the National Rifle Association has clearly stated that it does not support animal cruelty, but that the group shares the concern of the media organizations, alleging that the law is so broad in scope that it will hamper its right to sell hunting videos popular with its members.

And the American Civil Liberties Union says that the law “impermissibly criminalizes a vast array of protected expression targets speech based on its viewpoint.”

Solicitor General Elena Kagan argues the law is necessary to combat the commercial incentives someone might have in trying to profit off of activities that are illegal in all 50 states.

Kagan contends the law is narrowly tailored to target people like Stevens who sold material showing bloody dogfights and so-called “crush videos” in which women wearing high heeled shoes step on animals until they are dead. “Such images are far removed from the free trade in ideas that the First Amendment was designed to protect,” Kagan wrote.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Name
Name
13 years ago

By the way, Nike has chosen to endorse Vick once again. I will never buy another Nike product.

Kenn Bell
13 years ago

Do you have a link to an article about it?

Lori
Lori
13 years ago

Freedom of speech indicates that its ok to have an opinion about something and to be able to voice that opinion. and I'm sorry, but videos depicting dog fights and animal cruelty do not advocate anyones opinion, only senseless violence. sure, there are commercials for charities that depict animals who were victims of cruelty and neglect, but those commercials DO advocate an opinion and dont show footage of how the animal gained its injuries.

Gary
Gary
13 years ago

I agree with you. So long an this animal hater is being indorsed by Nike, they lost all business from me. I live in PA and WAS an Eagles fan. I switch my alligenace back to the Steelers, even though I live on the other side of the state. I cannot endorse a team that will hire a dog killer.

For me personally, I think anyone who harms an animal intentionally should be put in prison and the key thrown away. There are too much evidence that kind of behavior to serial killers.

Gary
Gary
13 years ago

I agree with you. So long an this animal hater is being indorsed by Nike, they lost all business from me. I live in PA and WAS an Eagles fan. I switch my alligenace back to the Steelers, even though I live on the other side of the state. I cannot endorse a team that will hire a dog killer.

For me personally, I think anyone who harms an animal intentionally should be put in prison and the key thrown away. There are too much evidence that kind of behavior to serial killers.

SUBSCRIBE TO
DOG FILES

Top Posts

More Articles...

How To Pick A Shelter Dog

If you like The Dog Files please join our Facebook Fan Page at http://www.facebook.com/dogfiles Also, follow us on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/dogfiles  By Lana Berkowitz for Houston Chronicle You want to

Read More »

Find out why over 8000 dog lovers have already joined!

Receive our newsletter, get special deals & stay updated.

Sign Up For the
DOG FILES Newsletter!

Food & Treats

Toys & Training

Beds & Essentials

Health & Grooming

0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x

Why haven't You Signed up For our Newsletter?

Find out why over 8000 Dog lovers have already Joined!

Receive our newsletter, get special deals & stay updated.