By Lisa Wade McCormick
ConsumerAffairs.com
July 23, 2010
In a move praised by animal-rights advocates, the U.S. House of Representatives this week overwhelmingly approved a bill to stop the sale of videos that depict horrific acts of animal cruelty.
The House on Tuesday -- by a 416 to 3 bi-partisan vote -- 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 barbaric acts as the intentional crushing, burning, drowning, suffocating, and impaling of puppies, kittens, and other animals.
These so-called "crush videos" are made for the sexual titillation of viewers and usually feature scantily clad women in stiletto heels crushing small animals, animal protection advocates said.
"These are fetish videos that cater to people who become aroused at the depiction of crushing small animals," said Dr. Randall Lockwood, Ph.D, senior vice-president of Forensic Sciences and Anti-Cruelty projects for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) "The nature of these videos came as a surprise even to those of us experienced with animal cruelty issues."
Court weighs in
Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Calif. introduced this legislation -- which now moves to the Senate -- in response to the Supreme Court's decision in April that overturned a ban on the sale of these gruesome animal cruelty videos.
On April 20, the High Court ruled that a 1999 federal law prohibiting the sale of crush videos was "substantially overbroad, and therefore invalid under the First Amendment."
Free speech advocates cheered the court's 8-1 ruling; animal protection groups expressed outrage and disappointment. They also promised quick action to counter the court's decision.
The day after the Supreme Court ruling, House leaders introduced the more narrowly-focused "Prevention of Interstate Commerce in Animal Crush Videos Act of 2010."
"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."
Praise for bill
Dr. Lockwood applauds the new "crush" legislation -- and House members' swift approval of the bill.
"We're very pleased," he said. "There was a real sense of urgency in crafting this crush bill. It was put forward literally hours after the Supreme Court's decision. We felt that we had to move quickly to address this particular problem ... and this bill deals with crush videos specifically."
Only three lawmakers -- all Republicans -- voted against the bill: Reps. Tom Graves and Paul Broun - both of Georgia -- and Ron Paul of Texas. Thirteen House members did not vote on the measure.
Dr. Lockwood said he's optimistic the bill will move quickly -- and with little opposition -- through the Senate. "The first time around for the original crush video, the vote was 372-42 in the House and the Senate vote was unanimous," he said. "We hope we can duplicate that success."
Asked about the Senate's timetable for approving the bill, Lockwood said: "The last time around it took 30 days from the House to the Senate. I hope this moves almost as quickly ... in 30 to 60 days, I hope. There is overwhelming support of this bill in the House, which is good."
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) also lauded the House's vote on the "crush video" bill and urged the Senate to quickly approve the measure.
"By enacting H.R. 5566, Congress can provide a top kill to a merciless subculture of animal crushing videos that have bubbled up in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling on the subject in April," said the organization's President and CEO, Wayne Pacelle. "This legislation is narrowly tailored to address the Court's concerns, and the current legislation does not limit speech, but only conduct of the most abhorrent and vile kind."
Congressman 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."
Provisions
The bill specifically prohibits anyone from "knowingly and for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain" selling, offering to sell, or distributing an animal crush video in interstate or foreign commerce.
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 measure.
Anyone found guilty under the legislation can be fined or imprisoned for up to five years.
Need for law
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 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."
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 -- action that lead to the disappearance of the crush video industry.
"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. The Supreme Court's April decision, he warned, only fueled that resurgence.
"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."
The Supreme Court's 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. Justices ruled the 1999 law was too broad and could be interpreted to include such activities as hunting. The Court 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.
But what about the sale of videos that depict dog fighting -- the type of videos that led to Robert Stevens' conviction?
Animal protection advocates haven't forgotten those concerns. "We will work to draft other legislation to address dog fighting videos," Dr. Lockwood told us.
Animal protection groups said consumers can voice their support or concerns about the crush video legislation to their Congressional representatives.
