The HSUS Calls on Congress to Enact New Law Aimed at Cracking Down on Cruel ‘Crush’ Videos
H.R. 5092 introduced with bipartisan support of more than 50 original cosponsors
The Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society Legislative Fund urge Congress to work quickly to provide law enforcement the tools they need to crack down on traffickers of animal "crush" videos by passing H.R. 5092. Introduced on Wednesday by Reps. Elton Gallegly, R-Calif., James Moran, D-Va., Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., and more than 50 other Representatives, this narrowly-crafted statute is designed to end the intentional crushing, burning, drowning and impaling of puppies, kittens and other animals for the depraved purpose of peddling videos of such extreme acts of animal cruelty for the sexual titillation of viewers.
H.R. 5092 was introduced immediately in response to yesterday's Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Stevens. The Court ruled that a law introduced by Rep. Gallegly and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1999, the Depiction of Animal Cruelty Act, was "overbroad" and might capture depictions protected by the First Amendment. The Court acknowledged the long history of animal protection laws in the United States and left open a pathway for Congress to pass a more targeted law aimed at "extreme animal cruelty."
Before the 1999 law was enacted, there were approximately 3,000 of these horrific videos available in the marketplace, selling for up to $300 apiece. That market all but disappeared soon after the law was passed, but since a federal appellate court declared the law unconstitutional in July 2008, crush videos have again proliferated on the Internet.
"Congress should act quickly to enact this legislation to prevent some of the most extreme forms of animal cruelty I have ever seen," said Wayne Pacelle, president & CEO of The Humane Society of the United States. "Anyone who has seen the clips of women in high heels literally crushing small animals will understand the urgency in passing a bill to prevent the sale of these vile images."
"Violence is not a First Amendment issue; it is a law enforcement issue," Rep. Elton Gallegly said. "Ted Bundy and Ted Kaczynski tortured or killed animals before killing people. The FBI, U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Justice consider animal cruelty to be one of the early warning signs of potential violence by youths. This bill is one step toward ending this cycle of violence."
"I refuse to stand by while people profit from the mutilation and torture of helpless puppies, kittens and other animals." said Rep. Jim Moran. "I look forward to continuing to work with Congressman Gallegly to respond to this decision while preserving the constitutional freedoms all Americans hold dear."
"Animal cruelty is not something to celebrate and circulate online," said Rep. Earl Blumenauer. "On the heels of yesterday's Supreme Court decision, we're taking immediate and bipartisan action to protect animals without infringing on the right to free speech. The bottom line is that we need to protect animals from being tortured or killed in a manner that is criminal or morally reprehensible. No one should be allowed to profit from so-called crush videos or other images of animal cruelty."
The following 56 Representatives are original cosponsors of H.R. 5092:
Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md.
Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore.
Mary Bono-Mack, R-Calif.
Kevin Brady, R-Texas
Henry Brown, R-S.C.
Dan Burton, R-Ind.
John Campbell, R-Calif.
Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va.
Lois Capps, D-Calif.
Mike Castle, R-Del.
Howard Coble, R-N.C.
Steve Cohen, D-Tenn.
Susan Davis, D-Calif.
Bill Delahunt, D-Mass.
Mike Doyle, D-Pa.
Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo.
Sam Farr, D-Calif.
Bob Filner, D-Calif.
Randy Forbes, R-Va.
Trent Franks, R-Ariz.
Elton Gallegly, R-Calif.
Jim Gerlach, R-Pa.
John Hall, R-Texas
Phil Hare, D-Ill.
Rush Holt, D-N.J.
Steve Israel, D-N.Y.
Dale Kildee, D-Mich.
Peter King, R-N.Y.
Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio
Jerry Lewis, R-Calif.
John Lewis, D-Ga.
John Linder, R-Ga.
Frank LoBiondo, R-N.J.
Buck McKeon, R-Calif.
Gary Miller, R-Calif.
Jeff Miller, R-Fla.
Gwen Moore, D-Wis.
Jim Moran, D-Va.
John Olver, D-Mass.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla.
Steven Rothman, D-N.J.
Ed Royce, R-Calif.
Linda Sanchez, D-Calif.
Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif.
Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill.
Adam Schiff, D-Calif.
Aaron Schock, R-Ill.
Brad Sherman, D-Calif.
Lamar Smith, R-Texas
Betty Sutton, D-Ohio
Fred Upton, R-Mich.
Diane Watson, D-Calif.
Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y.
Ed Whitfield, R-Ky.
Joe Wilson, R-S.C.
Frank Wolf, R-Va.
Now that you have read that you are probably thinking that kind of s&*t should be illegal...and I agree!
'BUT'
The bill included language written in such a way that hunting videos could have fallen into the realm of animal cruelty...luckily for now there are a few justices with brains and they refused to pass it. Be sure to read Wayneo's comments about bringing the bill back in another form.
Right now in several states there is a law that allows Animal Services to SIEZE ALL YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY if you are arrested (even before you are convicted) on an animal cruelty charge (the funds from selling your forfeited property are used to fund Animal Services programs). In California (which also has the law I just mentioned) we are even facing a bill that will force people convicted of animal cruelty charges to register as offenders in a publicly accessable data base (which will even include your home address). Unfortunatley the definition of animal cruelty is no longer founded in common sense, animal cruelty is now being defined by extremist animal rights groups and the Animal Services public and private agencies that have bought into their big money. You can now be convicted of animal cruelty for an over turned water bucket, or a turd in the kennel.
So I guess lets go ahead and keep arguing about if graphic photos and videos should be posted...I'm willing to bet 99% did not even know about the bills or laws I just mentioned.
Supreme Court overturns anti-animal cruelty law in First Amendment case
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
The Supreme Court on Tuesday forcefully struck down a federal law aimed at banning depictions of dog fighting and other violence against animals, saying it violated constitutional guarantees of free speech and created a "criminal prohibition of alarming breadth."
The 8 to 1 ruling, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., was a ringing endorsement of the First Amendment's protection of even distasteful expression. Roberts called "startling and dangerous" the government's argument that the value of certain categories of speech should be weighed against their societal costs when protecting free speech.
"The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh the costs," Roberts wrote. "Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it."
The decision was the second major First Amendment ruling of the term, and far more unified than the first. In January, a divided court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations and unions have a right to use their general treasuries and profits to spend freely on political ads for and against specific candidates.
Paul M. Smith, a Washington lawyer who had filed an amicus brief in the animal cruelty case on behalf of civil libertarians who opposed the law, called it "quite a strong decision" and said it was more evidence of a "court that is moving in the direction of strong enforcement of the First Amendment."
The law was enacted in 1999 to forbid sales of so-called crush videos. They appeal to a certain sexual fetish by depicting the torture of animals -- cats, dogs, monkeys, mice and hamsters, according to Congress -- or showing them being crushed to death by women wearing stiletto heels or with their bare feet. While dog-fighting and other forms of animal cruelty are already illegal, Congress said the legislation was necessary to stop the production of videos for commercial gain.
But the government has not used the law to prosecute any producer of a crush video. Instead, the case before the court, United States v. Stevens, involves Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Va., who was sentenced to three years in prison for making videos of pit bulls fighting. An appeals court overturned the conviction when it ruled the law was unconstitutional.
Roberts' opinion said the court was not passing judgment about whether a narrower statute limited just to crush videos and "other depictions of extreme animal cruelty" might be constitutional.
But the court said the legislation passed by Congress was far too broad. Anyone who "creates, sells or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty" for commercial gain can be imprisoned for up to five years. A depiction of cruelty was defined as one in which "a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed."
Roberts wrote that the definition was so loose that it could include all depictions of wounding or killing animals, even hunting videos or magazines. He said the law's exemption for works of "serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value" was not enough protection, and the court was not reassured by the government's argument that prosecutions were rare.
"We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the government promised to use it responsibly," he wrote.
Besides, he added, when President Bill Clinton signed the measure into law, he said the Justice Department would limit prosecutions to "wanton cruelty to animals designed to appeal to a prurient interest in sex." That was not the case in the Stevens prosecution.
The court has identified only certain categories of speech as outside the First Amendment's protection: obscenity, fraud, incitement, defamation and speech integral to criminal conduct. The last time the court decided speech was so unredeeming it did not deserve such protection was 25 years ago, and the subject was child pornography.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. was the lone dissenter in Tuesday's opinion.
He said the law was enacted "not to suppress speech, but to prevent horrific acts of animal cruelty." He said that the entire law need not be found unconstitutional, and that the "practical effect" of the ruling would be to spur production of crush videos, which opponents such as the Humane Society of the United States said had decreased with passage of the 1999 law.
Humane Society President Wayne Pacelle said his organization was prepared for the court's ruling given the tough questioning of justices at oral arguments last fall. "We're hopeful that a more narrowly tailored law aimed at vicious and illegal acts of cruelty" would pass constitutional muster, he said, adding that work already is underway with supportive members of Congress.
David Horowitz, executive director of the Media Coalition, said in a statement that the court rightly decided that if the First Amendment were rewritten "every time an unpopular or distasteful subject was at issue, we wouldn't have any free speech left."
Horowitz -- whose organization represents publishers, booksellers and producers, and retailers of movies, videos and video games -- said that "animal cruelty is wrong and should be vigorously prosecuted, but as the court today found, sending people to prison for making videos is not the answer."