usvstevens [PDF to the case]
http://volokh.com/posts/1216416918.shtml
Professor Volokh recently says he thinks the law may be overturned and read what many commenters have said; the law as applied would create considerable problems for other mainstream movies out there, perhaps even Bambi………..
HSUS is trying to show that animal “cruelty” written as it is in this particular law, is in the same league as child porn. HSUS wants that obviously because HSUS believes animals are people. If this law was used to go after any depictions where the so-called offense is legal, but then the video was viewed where the action could be illegal, it opens up a can of worms for prosecuting crimes that were not crimes when the acts were done, and vice versa.
2 responses so far ↓
legal beagle // July 20, 2009 at 10:52 am
TITLE 18, U.S.C. §48 is constitutionally invalid in toto.
Unbiased truth is a compelling societal interest. In 2008, the Humane Society of the United States used graphic and exploitative depictions of dog fighting as part of a fraudulent internet fundraising scam, ending abruptly with an FBI investigation. Under §48, tax exempt political organizations such as the HSUS could effectively silence any opposing viewpoint and continue to create deceptive fundraising propaganda. The HSUS owns numerous for profit subsidiaries, thus generating “commercial gain” from the sale of “Unleashed” and “Off the Chain”, as well as other video and print media which depicts animal cruelty far more graphic than that of the Respondent. Animal rights groups on the FBI domestic terrorist watch list such as People for the “ethical” Treatment of Animals (PeTA) have used digital software to manufacture realistic depictions of animal cruelty. Non profit extremists believe that their (pernicious) activities always have “serious” value, yet are exempt from the provisions of §48.
Unlike neglect (failure to provide that which is necessary), defining animal “cruelty” can be far more subjective than it might seem. Defining “cruelty” by the animal rights movement’s own terms is offensively over broad and encompasses activities that benefit virtually all law abiding citizens in some manner, such as food and clothing production, pet ownership, zoos and marine parks, or biomedical research which includes vaccine production.
Correlation is not causation. §48 has no provable influence on criminal potential. Speculation has no place in suppressing the freedoms that our great nation was founded upon. We already have strong laws addressing animal “cruelty”. Human cruelty and violence created purely for commercial gain proliferates in films and video games. History must be accurately documented and publicly available, even when unpopular speech or depiction might make society uncomfortable. All history is relevant, even the alleged “prurient interests” of the “depraved” cock fighters who framed our Constitution. The seriousness of something’s value should not be dismissed nor defined solely by those who wish to monopolize it for their own financial benefit. “Serious” renders §48 void for vagueness and the failure of §48 to include non commercial financial gain violates the 14th Amendment.
Clearly evident by the phrasing of their arguments, supporters of this statute intend to devaluate the legal status of humans by elevating the legal status of all animals to that of America’s children. “The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration.” – Michael W. Fox, former Vice President, HSUS
Censoring the unfettered exchange of ideas is an affront to deeply rooted American values. Tragically, the language of §48 does not specifically target “crush videos” nor was its semantic construction ever really intended to… §48 mocks its legislative history to the extent that it constitutes a fraud of crisis marketing, perpetrated upon on Congress. The Respondents’ documentaries were never ever intended “to seek a sexual response” and do not constitute a grave threat to human beings, nor were they disseminated to unwilling recipients.
The commerce of art currently on display in the AKC Museum of the Dog or books by respected authors such as James Thurber and Mark Twain should not become subjectively criminal. Extremist “animal fighting” rhetoric has already created a reverse onus, destroying the livelihood and reputations of innocent Americans such as Mahlon Patrick and Floyd Boudreaux. While our compassionate stewardship of animals is imperative, we do not need the vague and over broad language of §48 to undermine the 1st Amendment or violate the 14th Amendment.
petdefense // August 9, 2009 at 8:09 am
Tragically is correct. The CA legislature has been put on notice. Not just once, but repeatedly, in person. We hope it sinks in this month (August) …thanks for the comments.