First Amendment topicsAbout the First Amendment
print this   Print         E-mail this article  E-mail this article

Blog: Speech advocates await dogfight-video ruling
First Amendment Watch

By David L. Hudson Jr.
First Amendment scholar

Comment? E-mail me

Will animal-cruelty videos face the same First Amendment fate as obscenity and child pornography? That’s a question the Supreme Court likely will answer — perhaps as soon as next week — when it issues its highly anticipated decision in United States v. Stevens.

On Oct. 6, the justices heard oral arguments in the case, which examines the constitutionality of a federal law that criminalizes the production, sale or possession of depictions of animal cruelty produced for commercial gain. Congress passed the law after hearing about "crush videos," which feature women in high stilettos crushing small animals to death.

Stevens doesn't involve crush videos, though. Federal prosecutors in Pennsylvania charged Robert Stevens, a pit-bull enthusiast, under the federal law for three videos showing animals subjected to violence. Prosecutors likened the videos to child pornography in that they had no social value justifying constitutional protection. A jury convicted Stevens, but the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. The appeals court refused to accept the government’s analogy of child pornography as an exception to the First Amendment under the Supreme Court’s 1982 decision New York v. Ferber.

“Without guidance from the Supreme Court, a lower federal court should hesitate before extending the logic of Ferber to other types of speech,” the 3rd Circuit majority wrote in United States v. Stevens.

At oral argument, Chief Justice John Roberts asked Neal Katyal, who argued for the federal government in defense of the law: “If you could do it in one sentence, what is your test for determining which categories of speech are unprotected by the First Amendment?”

Katyal's response apparently proving unsatisfactory, Roberts later seemed to answer his own question by quoting from Ferber, saying speech is unprotected when “the evil to be restricted so overwhelmingly outweighs the expressive interest at stake.”

Roberts' view, if widely shared on the bench, could mean that the Court would create another unprotected category of expression only if it believes the ill effects of the speech far outweighed First Amendment interests.

But Stevens’ videos are not about crushing or killing dogs; instead, in his view, they're about the virtues of pit bulls. If that's the case, then it's highly questionable that they could be classified as “evil.” A documentary on dogfighting might have some educational value. Though the law contains an exception for material with educational value, it's uncertain how prosecutors would determine whether such an exception applied. Furthermore, there are laws on the books that punish acts of animal cruelty as opposed to depictions of it. As the 3rd Circuit reasoned, the government’s interest in prohibiting depictions of animal cruelty doesn’t rise to the same level as eradicating child pornography.

What's more, if the Court did create another unprotected category, could the decision be limited? It might start courts down the path of criminalizing all sorts of violent expression, of endorsing some type of “violence as obscenity” concept. Currently, obscenity is confined to the realm of hard-core sexual material.

The Court has many options in Stevens, given the dubious legislative history, the overbreadth and the vagueness of the law in question. One can hope that the justices won't carve out another category of expression that's off-limits. That would do great violence to the First Amendment.

Comment? E-mail me


Justices strike down animal-cruelty video ban

High court says federal law violates First Amendment. 04.20.10

History of animal-cruelty law at issue in Stevens poses incongruity

By Adam Ezra Schulman Legislative history shows bill was passed to outlaw 'crush videos'; case before Supreme Court does not involve such depictions. 08.04.09

Court seems hostile to law against animal-cruelty depictions

By Tony Mauro Justices' concerns echo arguments made in briefs filed by opponents of federal statute. 10.07.09

Court embraces First Amendment in Stevens
By Tony Mauro Roberts calls government defense of animal-video law 'startling and dangerous.' 04.21.10

Blog: Court refuses to create new free-speech exemption
By David L. Hudson Jr. Chief justice's reasoning in U.S. v. Stevens ensures that not every censor can take his or her slice out of First Amendment pie. 04.20.10

First Amendment Watch blog

Analysis/Commentary summary page
View the latest analysis and commentary throughout the First Amendment Center Online.

Last system update: Friday, April 23, 2010 | 15:09:31
About this site
About the First Amendment
About the First Amendment Center
How to contribute
First Amendment programs
State of the First Amendment

Religious liberty in public schools
First Reports
Supreme Court
First Amendment publications
First Amendment Center history
Freedom Sings™
First Amendment

Congressional Research Service reports
Guest editorials
FOI material
The First Amendment

Lesson plans
Contact us
Privacy statement
Related links