Email The Supreme Court today invalidated a federal law that had criminalized the sale of certain depictions of animal crueltyincluding violent dogfighting videos. An majority on the Court said that the law was "substantially overbroad, and therefore invalid under the First Amendment," affirming the right of free speech in the face of some government-imposed restrictions. The government had argued that showing animals being mutilated, tortured or killed was so explicit that it should be banned.
StevensF. During an investigation, law enforcement officials bought three videotapes from Stevens, the first two showing footage of pit bulls in dogfights, and the third showing footage of trained pit bulls attacking wild boar.
See StevensF. The District Court sentenced Stevens to thirty-seven months of imprisonment.
Stevens appealed his convictions to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Ferberin which the Supreme Court ruled that child pornography depicting actual children is unprotected under the First Amendment. The Third Animal cruelty speech debate based its determination on three reasons.
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. City of HialeahU. Second, the Third Circuit pointed out that whenever the Supreme Court has restricted free speech rights to further a government interest, the interest has always related to the well-being of humans, as opposed to non-humans.
National consensus against animal cruelty is also long-standing, as all fifty states have maintained laws against animal cruelty for at least a century. See Brief of Amici Curiae Florida, et al.
In this case, the Supreme Court must balance these interests, and the resolution of this case will determine the ability of Congress to ban certain kinds of speech. Petitioner, the United States, argues that 18 U.
See Brief for Petitionerthe United States at See Brief of Florida, et al. The United States further contends that combating animal cruelty is important for preventing harm to both humans and animals. See Brief for Petitioner at Because research has shown that animal abuse can lead to violence towards humans, the United States argues that it has an additional interest in preventing animal cruelty apart from protecting animal welfare.
See Brief for RespondentRobert J. For example, Stevens points out that animal rights activists, journalists, and others have properly used depictions of animal cruelty to stimulate debate about the treatment of animals. See Brief of the Cato Institute at See Brief for Respondent at New HampshireU.
Protected Speech or Unprotected Speech? Petitioner, the United States, argues that depictions of animal cruelty that are made, sold, or possessed for commercial gain constitute a narrow category of unprotected speech that may be prohibited.
The United States argues that under Chaplinsky v. The United States analogizes depictions of animal cruelty to the narrow unprotected category of child pornography.
According to the United States, this carve-out ensures that those depictions of animal cruelty that have genuine societal value are permitted.
See Brief for Respondent at 14— According to Stevens, history and tradition have allowed the categorical prohibition only of speech that leads to some kind of imminent crime or injury and speech that constitutes obscenity or child pornography.
He contends that because depictions of animal cruelty can be used by animal rights groups, journalists and politicians to encourage the proper treatment of animals, and to spur debate over animal cruelty, this kind of speech has expressive value and is categorically protected.
Stevens argues that this is a form of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. See United States v. See Reply for Petitioner at See Reply for Petitioner at 39 citing e.
WilliamsS. Stevens argues that his primary concern is the constitutionality of his criminal conviction, and that it is the government who made the facial validity of the statute in issue by prohibiting an entire category of speech.
See Brief for Petitioner at 43— The United States identifies three compelling interests: In addition, the United States contends that cruelty to animals is antisocial and can lead to violence against humans.
See Brief for Respondent at 38, Stevens further argues that the government has not shown enough evidence that depictions of animal cruelty are so lucrative that banning them will reduce the underlying violence or that viewing depictions of animal cruelty leads to violence against humans.These include the SPCA, which is the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Animal Aid, and the City of Burlington Animal Control Bylaw Officers.
I attended the Animal Control office and spoke to Bylaw Officer Tanya. Through my interview, and literature I received, I found out that Animal Control rescued cats in The Supreme Court invalidated a law today that criminalized the commercial sale of certain depictions of animal cruelty.
An majority on the Court said that the law was "substantially overbroad. Oct 27, · Possibly, the worst case of animal cruelty in film is the movie, 'Cannibal Holocaust'. Though the movie waded in troubled waters ever since it was released, it was proven than at least six animals, a muskrat, a pig, a monkey, a snake, a turtle and a Status: Resolved.
Oct 06, · The Supreme Court voiced deep free speech concerns Tuesday about a law designed to stop the sale and marketing of videos showing dog fights and other acts of animal cruelty.
Animal cruelty is like a disease, it just won’t stop, students I will now tell you all my last argument which is why animal cruelty should be abolished.
Classmates imagine your eyes being blinded, your skin being burnt off of your bones, your hair being ripped off or your legs or arms being torn apart.
The speech Friday by U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, on the Senate floor, explaining her intended vote to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh, was the most comprehensive, best-reasoned and most.