No Mercy for the Merciless

Those who profit from selling images of the torture of animals should not be shielded by something as noble as the United States Constitution. | iStock.com

It has been a seldom-evoked federal law.  But the Federal Depiction of Animal Cruelty Law has served justice in vital ways.

Namely this: The existence of this statute had put a stop to the spread of a horrifying business—the interstate commerce in prurient videotapes in which animals are killed for the viewer’s sick gratification.

In these dark fetish films, kittens, rabbits, and other small furry animals are tortured by leggy women wearing stiletto-heeled shoes. The squealing, struggling animal victims might be burned with cigarette lighters, and then impaled by the women’s spiked heels and crushed to death.

Now, unfortunately, purveyors who want to profit from the sale of this kind of merchandise see their chance.  Already, an HSUS investigation uncovered hundreds of separately produced videos of this genre becoming available for sale on the Internet.

So, what else did this important law do?  Well, it put Bob Stevens behind bars. In 2005, Stevens was one of the first persons tried and convicted under the statute. A dogfighting devotee and author of a how-to manual on the blood sport, his crime was the commercial sale of videos that showed man’s best friends tearing themselves apart in bloody rampages—yes, another activity that combines bloodlust and gambling hysteria. According to Stevens' own statements, he even transported his own fighting dogs to Japan for the activity, trying to evade the strong felony laws back home.

But then something happened.

Stevens claimed that commercial depiction of torturing animals was free speech. And the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regrettably agreed. The Judges ruled that preventing animal cruelty was not a “compelling state interest.”

Well, at The Humane Society of the United States, we call this kind of treatment of animals wrong. It’s isn’t speech, but conduct.  And it isn’t free—it’s suffering paid in full by animals who never harmed anyone.

We think those who profit from selling images of this torture of animals should not be shielded by something as noble as the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights.  We believe that the long arc of American history, including local, state and federal legislative annals, plus today’s best behavioral science and law enforcement experience, make an irrefutable case for the government’s interest in combating animal abuse.

Animal cruelty is a crime everywhere in the United States. Dogfighting is a felony crime in all 50 states.  Selling videos of these cruelties, even if they occur in foreign lands, only serves to perpetuate the suffering. A rabbit who dies slowly with a spike-heel driven through her body does not know that she lives in, say, China. A pair of dogs do not comprehend that they have been transported outside the borders of the United States for the sake of making a video to see which one is first to rip the other’s face off so he will bleed to death. If America’s other laws against cruelty are limited in their reach, this law of last-resort can at least put an end to the over-the-counter commercial trade in such animal misery.

Today The Humane Society of the United States is at the United States Supreme Court as the U.S. Solicitor General defends this worthy law.  We joined with the Solicitor General and the Attorneys General of 26 states in asking the nation’s highest court to overturn the Third Circuit's decision.

Our argument is simple: There are deeds so dark that they do not warrant, and do not receive, the lofty protection of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.  The trade in such material, such as child pornography, is rightfully a crime and receives no Constitutional protection.  And so too should the trade in videotapes of wanton cruelty inflicted on uncomprehending but much suffering animals.

We are talking about victims who cannot speak for themselves. A vote of Congress declared the sale of this material to be a crime with passage of the Depiction of Animal Cruelty Act. The many civil libertarians in Congress sided with us that this sort of conduct should be regulated ... not protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court can do the right thing and deal a blow to people who profit from animal suffering by reinstating this law and affirming our society’s right to protect the innocent from predatory commercialism by those with sick hearts, or no hearts at all.

Related Links

Resurgence of Animal ‘Crush’ Videos Reinforces Need for Federal Depiction of Animal Cruelty Law

Overview of United States v. Stevens

Bob Stevens