Animal Crush Videos
The Supreme Court handed a victory to animal abusers on April 20, 2010 when it overturned the federal law prohibiting the creation, sale, and possession of depictions of animal cruelty for commercial purposes. Read about what happened, and what’s being done about it.
What Are “Crush Videos”?
These are videos that show women in stilettos, or even their bare feet, literally crushing, stomping on, or impaling small, helpless animals to satisfy sadistic viewers with a bizarre sexual fetish.
The Law
In 1999, in response to a flood of crush videos available through the Internet, Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) introduced a bill to prohibit the creation, sale, or possession for commercial purposes of “a depiction of animal cruelty.” It was signed into federal law later that year. (18 USC §48) “Depiction of animal cruelty” was defined as “any visual or auditory depiction… 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 [it] takes place,” regardless of whether the actual conduct took place in that State. Exceptions are allowed for material with “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.” Punishment can include fine or imprisonment for as long as five years, or both.
Because of the near-impossibility of identifying the women in these films who actually did the crushing, a law was needed to allow the prosecution of those who were making and selling such films—the ones who were profiting from the animal suffering.
Enforcement
Crush videos disappeared from the Internet almost immediately, so investigations turned to dog fighting videos, which continued to be available. Three successful cases were brought against purveyors of dog fighting videos before Robert Stevens of Pittsville, VA, was convicted in 2005 of selling dog fighting videos to undercover agents. He was sentenced to 37 months in jail. He challenged his conviction, and the appeals court overturned his conviction on First Amendment grounds in July 2008. In order to defend the crush video law, the federal government asked the Supreme Court to review the appeals court decision.
The Supreme Court Decision
In overturning the crush video law, the Supreme Court ruled that §48 was “substantially overbroad and therefore invalid under the First Amendment” for potentially affecting materials pertaining to legal activities, such as hunting, even though no such prosecution has ever been attempted. Justice Samuel Alito, the lone dissenter, sensibly argued that the law was designed “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.” In addition, the decision listed categories of speech on which the First Amendment permits restrictions, including “obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, and speech integral to criminal conduct,” and then shockingly concluded that “[d]epictions of animal cruelty should not be added to that list.” Animal cruelty is illegal across the United States, and 47 states and the District of Columbia treat egregious acts of cruelty as felonies. The vast majority of Americans find animal cruelty repugnant. In his dissent, Justice Alito understood this; he wrote that “the animals used in crush videos are living creatures that experience excruciating pain. Our society has long banned such cruelty, which is illegal throughout the country.”
What the Supreme Court Decision Does NOT Do
In ruling that the crush video law was “substantially overbroad,” the Court did not say whether a narrower law would be unconstitutional. In fact, the majority opinion explicitly stated that they “need not and do not decide whether a statute limited to crush videos or other depictions of extreme animal cruelty would be constitutional.”
The court decision also does not say that committing animal cruelty is protected by the First Amendment and it does not affect the enforcement of laws against animal cruelty.
The Response
Representative Elton Gallegly (R-CA), the sponsor of the original bill, Representative Gary Peters (D-MI), and 262 other Members of the House of Representatives introduced H.R. 5566, to restore the ban on crush videos. By targeting these videos only, it is hoped that this legislation will pass constitutional muster. On July 21, 2010, H.R. 5566 passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 416-3. The bill is now waiting for consideration by the Senate.
