By Lisa Wade McCormick
ConsumerAffairs.com
May 3, 2010
A bill to counter the Supreme Courts recent decision that overturned a ban on the sale of gruesome animal crush videos is gaining bipartisan support in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Supreme Court justices on April 20 ruled that a federal law prohibiting the sale of these graphic animal cruelty videos was substantially overbroad, and therefore invalid under the First Amendment.
Free speech advocates hailed the High Courts 8-1 ruling; animal protection groups expressed outrage and disappointment.
The day after the courts decision, Representatives Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.), James Moran (D-Virginia), and Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) introduced a new and narrowly-crafted bill to stop the sale of these videos, which depict the intentional crushing, burning, drowning and impaling of puppies, kittens, and other animals. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) said crush videos, which often feature women wearing high heel stiletto shoes, are made for the sexual titillation of viewers.
The Supreme Court made it clear that if we structured a bill that targeted crush videos it would probably pass their muster, Tom Pfeifer, press secretary for Representative Gallegly, told ConsumerAffairs.com this week. This bill specifically states were targeting animal crush videos and defines them. This is a much more narrowly-focused bill and it makes it clear what were targeting.
Pfeifer said the bill had 109 co-sponsors as of Wednesday. The Congressman is working hard to increase that number and working with the judiciary Committee to schedule a hearing.
Representative Gallegly, who introduced the 1999 Depiction of Animal Cruelty Act that is at the heart of the courts decision, emphasized this issue isnt about First Amendments rights.
"Law enforcement issue"
It is a law enforcement issue, he 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 law is one step toward ending this cycle of violence, he added.
Co-sponsors of the new bill said the measure is designed to prevent anyone from profiting off the sale of videos that depict heinous acts of animal cruelty.
Animal cruelty is not something to celebrate and circulate online, said Representative Blumenauer, an original co-sponsor of the 1999 bill and Animal Protection Caucus member. On the heels of (the) Supreme Court decision, were 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.
Representative Moran called the Supreme Courts decision a blow to efforts to stop animal cruelty and a victory for those whose bank accounts are padded from the sale of videos that glorify the killing of defenseless animals.
I refuse to stand by while people profit from the mutilation and torture of helpless puppies, kittens and other animals, he said. For 10 years, federal law had worked to dramatically reduce the proliferation of these videos. Now, Congress must act to restore these commonsense protections against animal cruelty.
The president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) applauds the new bill, saying law enforcement needs this measure to stop the trafficking of these grisly videos.
Wayne Pacelle said an HSUS investigation that exposed people making crush videos prompted Gallegly and other Congressional leaders to enact the 1999 law.
"We found some 3,000 separately produced animal crush videos on the Internet -- videos of women in high heel shoes crushing small animals for sexual gratification -- and we thought it was appalling," Pacelle told ConsumerAffairs.com. "But these people were doing this in a private setting and local law enforcement was not able to stop them."
HSUS wanted to close that gaping hole in the law.
"The only reason people make videos showing acts of cruelty to animals is to make a profit," Pacelle said, adding crush videos can sell for as much as $300 each. "There is no other reason to do these crush videos than to sell them for a profit."
After the 1999 law went into effect, the market for crush videos disappeared.
"That law dried up the market," Pacelle said. "It was very successful without a single prosecution. So we turned our attention to those peddling dog fighting videos. And all the arrests made under that 11-year-old statute were for selling dog fighting videos."
But this ghastly and money-hungry industry has resurfaced in the past year while the constitutionality of the law has been on appeal.
And the Supreme Court decisions has only fueled the industrys resurgence, Pacelle said.
They've already gone back into business, he told us. It was a year ago when the Third Circuit Court overturned the statute. And since that happened, crush videos have repopulated the Web.
"This decision will absolutely fuel this industry and accelerate the commercial sale of these videos.
The Supreme Courts decision last week also threw out the conviction of a Virginia man sentenced to three years in prison under the law for selling dog fighting videos. Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Virginia, appealed his conviction, saying it violated his right of free speech. The U.S Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia tossed out Stevens' conviction and ruled the 1999 law was unconstitutional.
The Department of Justice later appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Justices ruled the law was too broad and could be interpreted to include such activities as hunting. Justices also noted that dog fighting and animal cruelty are illegal nationwide.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito cast the lone dissenting opinion in the case.
"The Court strikes down in its entirety a valuable statute that was enacted not to suppress speech, but to prevent horrific acts of animal cruelty -- in particular, the creation and commercial exploitation of 'crush videos,' a form of depraved entertainment that has no social value," Alito wrote. "The Court's approach, which has the practical effect of legalizing the sale of such videos and is thus likely to spur a resumption of their production, is unwarranted."
When reaching their decision, however, justices noted the court was not ruling on the validity of a law that would only address crush videos. That language opened the door for Gallegly and other House members who want to stop the sale of these videos to introduce the new measure.
First Amendment
First Amendment advocates hailed the Supreme Courts ruling.
As the Court today recognized, giving the government freewheeling authority to judge the social worth of words and images is a dangerous proposition, said David Horowitz, executive director of http://www.mediacoalition.org/ Media Coalition, a trade association that defends the First Amendment. This landmark ruling affirms that First Amendment protections are not subject to balancing tests or limited to speech with so-called serious value.
During an interview with ConsumerAffairs.com, the HSUSs president said his organization was disappointed with the Court's ruling.
"We're big First Amendment fans," Pacelle said. Were devoted defenders of the First Amendment. But this case is about conduct. It's not about free speech. No one should be able to profit from malicious, illegal, and violent acts."
Pacelle urged Congress and concerned pet owners nationwide to support the new, more targeted legislation designed to stop the sale of crush videos, which the HSUS considers extreme animal cruelty.
"Congress should act quickly to enact this legislation to prevent some of the most extreme forms of animal cruelty I have ever seen," he said. "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."
Some members of the House of Representatives have already voiced their support for the bill.
Animal abuse and profiting from these actions are wrong, said Representative Betty Sutton (D-OH), a member of the Animal Protection Caucus. We must close the loopholes to crack down and end the trade in crush videos. Today, we are unequivocally restating, with a narrowly tailored measure, that it is unacceptable to videotape and sell extreme, cruel, and illegal depictions of the torturing, maiming, or mutilation of animals.
Pet owners whod like to see the new measure passed should contact their Congressional representatives and urge them to co-sponsor the bill, Pfeifer said.
