By Lisa Wade McCormick
ConsumerAffairs.com
June 27, 2010
A bill designed to stop the sale of videos that depict grisly acts of animal cruelty has cleared its first hurdle in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The House Judiciary Committee approved the narrowly-crafted H.R. 5566, which gives law enforcement the tools needed to crack down on people who traffic videos that show such heinous acts as the intentional crushing, burning, drowning, suffocating, and impaling of puppies, kittens, and other animals.
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) said the videos -- which often feature women wearing high heel stiletto shoes -- are made for the sexual titillation of viewers.
The Judiciary Committee approved the proposed legislation by a 23-0 vote. The measure -- titled The Prevention of Interstate Commerce in Animal Crush Videos Act of 2010 -- is now ready to move forward for full House approval.
Representatives Elton Gallegly (R-California) and Gary Peters (D-Michigan) introduced the legislation in response to the Supreme Courts recent decision that overturned a ban on the sale of these gruesome animal cruelty videos.
On April 20, the High Court ruled that a federal law prohibiting the sale of crush videos was "substantially overbroad, and therefore invalid under the First Amendment."
Free speech advocates hailed the High Court's 8-1 ruling; animal protection groups expressed outrage and disappointment. They also promised swift action to counter the courts decision.
Swift action
The day after the Supreme Court ruling, federal lawmakers introduced this more narrowly-focused bill.
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 Rep. Gallegly, told ConsumerAffairs.com in April. "This bill specifically states we're targeting animal crush videos and defines them. This is a much more narrowly-focused bill and it makes it clear what we're targeting.
The HSUS applauds the proposed measure and urges Congress to immediately approve the bill.
By enacting H.R. 5566, Congress can instantaneously dry up a merciless subculture that profits from some of the most extreme forms of animal cruelty I have ever seen, said Wayne Pacelle, president & CEO of the HSUS. Congress should act swiftly to make sure the First Amendment is not used as a shield for those committing barbaric acts of cruelty, and then peddling their videos on the Internet."
Rep. Gallegly, who introduced the 1999 law at the heart of the court's decision, emphasized this issue isn't about First Amendment rights.
Violence is not a First Amendment 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 bill is one step toward ending this cycle of violence.
Rep. Peters agrees.
"Animal torture videos are heinous, barbaric and completely unacceptable and we're going to stop them once and for all, he said. It's hard to believe that this sort of thing even exists, and that a new law is needed to prevent it. Animal torture is outrageously disturbing and common decency and morality dictates that those engaged in it shouldn't be profiting from it, they should be in prison.
The proposed bill specifically prohibits anyone from knowingly and for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain selling or distributing an animal crush video.
The measure also clearly defines an animal crush video.
The term `animal crush video' means any obscene photograph, motion-picture film, video recording, or electronic image that depicts actual conduct in which one or more living animals is intentionally crushed, burned, drowned, suffocated, or impaled in a manner that would violate a criminal prohibition on cruelty to animals under Federal law or the law of the State in which the depiction is created, sold, distributed, or offered for sale or distribution.
The bill further states that certain types of animal videos are allowed for sale or distribution. Videos, for example, that depict customary and normal veterinary or agricultural husbandry practices or hunting, trapping, or fishing are exempt under the proposed measure.
Those found guilty under the pending legislation can be fined or imprisoned for up to five years.
Not a new problem
Concerns about the sale of animal crush videos surfaced in 1999, when an HSUS investigation exposed an underground subculture in which puppies, kittens and other small animals were stomped, smothered, and pierced to death to cater to those with a sexual fetish for watching such acts of animal cruelty.
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," the HSUS Pacelle told us. 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."
Former President Bill Clinton signed a law in 1999 that banned the creation, sale, or possession of videos that show illegal and often extreme acts of animal cruelty. Rep. Gallegly introduced that legislation. The crush video industry disappeared soon after Congress enacted the law.
"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 Pacelle said the market for macabre crush videos resurfaced in the past year while the constitutionality of the 1999 law was on appeal. And the Supreme Courts recent decision will only fuel that resurgence, he warned.
They've already gone back into business, Pacelle told us in April. 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.
Dog fights
The Supreme Courts decision threw out the conviction of a Virginia man sentenced to three years in prison under the 1999 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 statute was unconstitutional.
The Department of Justice appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.
The High Court ruled the 1999 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 wanted to stop the sale of horrific crush videos to introduce the new and more specific measure.
Pet owners can voice their support or concerns about the proposed bill to their Congressional Representatives.
