U.S. Supreme Court Says Animal "Crush" Videos OK

...and I am sooooo ashamed to love the law right now.

----------------------------------------

Resurgence of Animal Crush Videos Reinforces Need for Federal Depiction
of Animal Cruelty Law
September 15, 2009

Small animals like kittens, puppies, rabbits, and mice get crushed to
death in "crush videos."
With the U.S. Supreme Court set to consider the constitutionality of a
federal anti-animal cruelty law on Oct. 6, The Humane Society of the United
States revealed the results of a new investigation showing a recent resurgence
in the same horrific animal "crush" videos that sparked the law's passage
a decade ago, now once again widely available on the Internet as
enforcement efforts have been hindered.
The enactment of the Federal Depiction of Animal Cruelty Law in 1999
halted the proliferation of animal crushing operations, and has also been used
to crack down on commercial dog fighting operations, in which the animals
often fight to the death for the amusement of viewers. The HSUS' most recent
investigation shows that since the law was struck down by an appellate
court last July, crush videos have re-proliferated on the Internet in response
to the court's ruling.
"The federal Depiction of Animal Cruelty Law is the only tool available to
crack down on this horrific form of extreme animal cruelty," said Wayne
Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States. "We
wouldn't allow the sale of videos of actual child abuse or murder staged for
the express purpose of selling videos of such criminal acts, and the same
legal principles apply to despicable acts of animal cruelty."
"More than 10 years ago law enforcement in my district alerted me to the
problem of thousands of 'crush videos' on the Internet. To combat these
perverse videos that show horrific acts of animal cruelty, I introduced the
Depictions of Animal Cruelty Act and it was enacted into law in 1999 with
strong bipartisan support," said Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Calif. "HSUS'
investigation revealing the widespread proliferation of crush videos since the law's
legal challenge makes the need for the this sensible but strong federal
animal protection law perfectly clear."
The videos and photographs show women, often in high-heeled shoes, impaling
and crushing to death puppies, kittens and other small animals, catering
to those with a fetish for this aberrant behavior.
The HSUS recently conducted extensive Internet research and undercover
email communication to ascertain the availability of small animal crush videos
for sale on the Internet. The crushing videos were easily available for
purchase and horrifying in the cruelty inflicted on the victims. The password
protected part of one website had 118 videos for sale. The videos were of
small animals, including rabbits, hamsters, mice, tortoises, quail, chicken,
ducks, frogs, snakes, and even cats, being tortured and crushed. The
animals were burned, drowned, and had nails hammered into them.
Videos ranged in price from $20 to $100. Each of the videos for sale
contained footage of multiple animals, translating into hundreds of small
animals being tortured and crushed to death for the profit-making of this one
website alone.
Undercover investigators also established contact with another crush
website and were offered for sale 12 crush videos featuring rabbits. Another
website contacted offered for sale 17 mouse crush videos.
"We wouldn't allow people to sell videos of people actually abusing
children and raping women, and for good reason. It's vital to protect the
community from the violence that flows from those who perpetrate such inexcusable
crimes," said Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va. "The same legal principles apply to the
malicious acts of cruelty revealed by The HSUS' recent crush video
investigation. We do not tolerate illegal animal abuse, and we should not tolerate
those who profit from it."
The Depiction of Animal Cruelty Law
* Congress passed the federal Depiction of Animal Cruelty Law
(Section 48) in 1999 with overwhelming bipartisan support.
* The law criminalizes the interstate sale of depictions, such as
video, in which "a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured,
wounded, or killed, if such conduct is illegal under Federal law or the
law of the State in which the creation, sale, or possession takes place."
* January 2005: _Robert Stevens_
(http://www.hsus.org/acf/news/bob_stevens_083109.html) was convicted in a jury trial of knowingly selling
graphic depictions of animal cruelty with intent to place those depictions in
interstate commerce for commercial gain. Stevens had been selling graphic
videos depicting actual dog fights, which are illegal in all 50 states.
* May 2005: Stevens appealed his conviction to the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals, which overturned the conviction and found that the Depiction
of Animal Cruelty Law was facially unconstitutional because it violated
First Amendment free speech guarantees.
* December 2008: The U.S. Solicitor General filed a petition for
certiorari requesting that the Supreme Court review and overturn the Third
Circuit's decision. The HSUS filed an amicus brief in support of the Solicitor
General's petition.
* April 2009: The Supreme Court agreed to review the Third Circuit's
decision.

The justices said they would review, at the request of the federal
government, an appeals court decision that said Congress's broad attempt to
discourage animal cruelty by outlawing its depiction violates the First Amendment.

(Newser) – Animal cruelty takes the floor of the Supreme Court tomorrow,
(today, and they ruled FOR animal cruelty saying torturing animals is
protected by the first amendment) as the justices consider whether to overturn an
appeals court judgment that allows the depiction of animal cruelty under
the auspices of the First Amendment. The lower court wasn’t keen on animal
cruelty, but found that our furry friends—unlike children, say—“would likely
not suffer continuing harm by having their images out in the marketplace.a
DIDN'T THESE ANIMALS SUFFER BEING TORTURED WHILE THESE VIDEOS WERE MADE?

The primary case was of a dog trainer who sold videos, purportedly for
educational purposes, which included dogs attacking pigs and each other.
Interestingly, Newsweek notes, he was prosecuted under a 1999 law that was
intended to quash so-called “crush videos,” made for fetishists who get off on
the high-heeled death of small animals. If the court overturns the ruling,
depictions of animal cruelty would join the likes of child porn as
expression not protected by the First Amendment.
—Harry Kimball

Source: (http://www.newsweek.com/id/216740) _Newsweek_
(http://www.newsweek.com/id/216740)

Supreme Court to Weigh Legality Of Animal Abuse [Crush] Videos

[Ed. Note: Crush videos show the crushing to death of living animals
(kittens, rats, rabits,etc.)[Ed. Note: Crush videos show the crushing to death of
living animals (kitt
From WashingtonPost.Fro
The Supreme Court yesterday (5/27/09) turned to the gruesome, announcing
that it will decide next term whether fetish films that depict the killing of
small animals and videos of dogfights are protected by constitutional
guarantees of free speech.
The justices said they would review, at the request of the federal
government, an appeals court decision that said Congress's broad attempt to
discourage animal cruelty by outlawing its depiction violates the First
Amendment.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia voted 10 to 3
last summer to find unconstitutional the rarely used law passed by
Congress in 1999. The appeals court said the goal of protecting against animal
cruelty was a worthy one, but one already accomplished by laws in all 50
states and the District of Columbia outlawing the practice.
The appeals court noted that the Supreme Court is resistant to removing
First Amendment protections of depictions even of illegal actions. The last
time the court did so was over child pornography.
"Preventing cruelty to animals, although an exceedingly worthy goal, simply
does not implicate interests of the same magnitude as protecting children
from physical and psychological harm," the appeals court said.
The law was passed in order to combat a phenomenon most people have never
heard of: "crush videos." According to the House report that accompanied the
bill, the videos depict "women inflicting . . . torture [on animals] with
their bare feet or while wearing high heeled shoes. . . . The cries and
squeals of the animals, obviously in great pain, can also be heard in the
videos."
The report said the videos appeal to people "with a very specific sexual
fetish," and because often only a woman's leg or high-heeled shoe is shown
inflicting the torture or death to the puppies, kittens and other animals,
prosecution under animal cruelty laws is difficult.
But the broadly written law, which outlaws depictions of almost any form of
animal cruelty, apparently has never been used for prosecuting crush
videos. Instead, it snared Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Va., who was convicted
and sentenced to 37 months in jail for selling videos of pit bull fights to
undercover agents operating out of Pennsylvania.
Stevens was not accused of taking part in the filming of the videos, one
of which showed a dog ripping apart the jaw of a pig . Lawyers for Stevens
said the government apparently has used the law only three times, all for
videos about dogfights. But the lawyers said the exceptions in the law, for
"serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic,
historical or artistic value," show that the images have some First Amendment
value.
The Humane Society of the United States also had urged the court to review
the law, saying that the sale of crush videos on the Internet had "all but
disappeared" after the law was passed but that sales had been revived by
the decision that the law was unconstitutional.
"We wouldn't allow the sale of videos of actual child abuse or murder
staged for the express purpose of selling videos of such criminal acts, and the
same legal principles apply to despicable acts of animal cruelty," the
society's president, Wayne Pacelle, said in a statement...
***************
RELATED INFO:


_Resurgence of Animal 'Crush' Videos Reinforces Need for ..._
(http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/resurgence_of_animal_crush_vid
eos_reinforces_need_for_depiction_of_cruelty_law_sm_091509.html)
15 Sep 2009 ... Resurgence of Animal 'Crush' Videos Reinforces Need for
Federal ... The enactment of the Federal Depiction of Animal Cruelty Law in
1999 ...
_www.hsus.org/www.hsus.owww.hsus.org/www.hsus.org_
(http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releas) ...
- 74k - _Similar pages_
(http://search.aol.com/aol/search?s_it=similarPages.search&q=related:www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/resurgen
ce_of_animal_crush_videos_reinforces_need_for_depiction_of_cruelty_law_sm_09
1509.html&s_cpd=similarPages)

_Resurgence of Animal 'Crush' Videos Reinforces Need ..._
(http://www.hsus.org/acf/news/crush_video_091509.html)
15 Sep 2009 ... Resurgence of Animal 'Crush' Videos Reinforces Need for
Federal Depiction ... " The federal Depiction of Animal Cruelty Law is the
only tool ...
_www.hsus.org/www.hsus.www.hsus.orgwww.hs_
(http://www.hsus.org/acf/news/crush_video_091509) ....

- 21k - _Similar pages_
(http://search.aol.com/aol/search?s_it=similarPages.search&q=related:www.hsus.org/acf/news/crush_video_091509.html&s_cpd=similar
Pages)
[ _More results from www.hsus.org_
(http://search.aol.com/aol/search?s_it=moreResultsFrom.search&q=+site:www.hsus.org+Resurgence+of+animal+crush+videos
+reinforces+need+for+federal+depiction+of+animal+cruelty+law&s_cpd=moreResul
ts) ]