As I scanned today’s headlines, I was immediately drawn to a case which hits close to home as a dog owner and close follower of the courts. Today’s Supreme Court ruling upheld the Third Court’s ruling in United States vs. Stevens that 18 U.S.C. §48, which states “to criminalize the commercial creation, sale, or possession of certain depictions of animal cruelty. The statute addresses only portrayals of harmful acts, not the underlying conduct. It applies to any visual or auditory depiction “in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed,” if that conduct violates federal or state law where “the creation, sale, or possession takes place,” §48(c)(1),” is too broad and is thus invalid under the protections granted to Stevens under the First Amendment.
At first glance, it seemed unbelievable that the courts would allow such awful depictions to be called protected speech under the Constitution. But upon further examination, it is obvious that the Supreme Court’s ruling has nothing to do with condoning animal cruelty, and everything to do with the need for a more specific law aimed at ending the most disgusting practices at hand. The ruling takes into mind that hunters could be susceptible to potential overreaching application of such a law. Therefore, the 8-1 decision is more of a call to action for Congress to construct a more specific law banning videos of non-hunting related animal cruelty. It is also a call to action for members of PETA, the Humane Society, and animal lovers nationwide to call their elected officials and demand that they work together to make this long overdue animal cruelty law a reality.
Since a certain degree of hunting is necessary to control animal over population, and instructional videos depicting the killing of animals are considered necessary by many to educate future hunters, Chief Justice Roberts and the other 7 in the majority determined that, amongst other reasons, the law was too broad as worded and went too far in impeding free speech. Now that the ruling has been made, there will no doubt be some who will abuse the implications by accelerating the release of dog fighting and crush videos. This is the most unfortunate byproduct of the ruling. But, maybe the fact that more people are now aware that these videos exist will be the fire that ignites the momentum towards a new, more narrowly focused animal cruelty video law. I truly believe that the court made this ruling in order to move the debate forward, not to empower people like Stevens. Now, let’s see if Congress will follow through and step up to the plate.
No comments:
Post a Comment