HSUS *Loses* Big Supreme Court Case, U.S. v Stevens

As expected, and predicted by most constitutional attorneys, and counselors on this blog, the U.S. v Stevens case decision by the US Supreme Court,  did NOT find in HSUS’ favor

HSUS kept trying to claim that their HSUS inspired law from 1999 made “sales” of videos [in this case, the history of dog fighting] illegal—-allegedly illegal because, according to HSUS—child porn and “animal abuse” are on the exact same level. In other words, HSUS claimed that “animal abuse” was equivalent to child porn, or snuff films–and therefore, such ‘depictions’ were allegedly illegal. HSUS continues to push laws that treat animals in the same method of kids–using guardianship, tax exemptions, data base for “animal” offenders, taxation ploys on animal food, abuse charges for “selling” animals [since you “adopt” kids, not buy them– get it?]

 Of course, HSUS argued for years and continues to argue,  that “animal abuse” is paramount to everything, since HSUS works allegedly on “animal abuse” cases?  The big problem is—HSUS calls everything animal abuse.  The con law scholars go over cases like this, arguing the merits of the free speech issues. But for purposes of animal “abuse” and HSUS, most of them don’t even realize that HSUS may use illegal warrants, engage Payolla Plaintiffs, and misrepresent their agenda/issues to the public. And most likely have no idea that HSUS considers animals as non property. 

Just last year in 2009, HSUS related groups got a law passed in California, AB1122.  We keep repeating, repeating and repeating— when groups pass laws that outlaw display, transfer, sales, exhibition, barter, trade, etc of animals—calling it “animal ABUSE”——— but DON’T outlaw the exact same thing for alleged humane society or ASPCA type groups—-that is NOT constitutional.  It wouldn’t likely be constitutional even if they included any or all groups.

That is akin to closing down a pet store, but leaving a “re-home” pet store or kennel open. That is the same as saying selling an animal is illegal, displaying an animal is illegal, transferring an animal is illegal. BUT NOT IF YOU ARE A HUMANE SOCIETY OR SPCA?????  What the hell does abuse have to do with being or not being an SPCA? 

Go ask any attorney in the United States if that is legal. It isn’t. And having the California legislature actually pass such an asinine illegal law such as AB1122 was one of the absolute worst things that has ever happened.  People don’t seem to understand the ramifications. Clearly— outlawing “selling” because one is not a humane society, or non profit, or an ASPCA is completely baseless. There is NO rational basis for that ridiculous theory. Yet the CA legislature is that dumb apparently. We call it payolla. HSUS finances something and then their law passes. HSUS seems to have a practice of paying.

U.S. v Stevens* actually has little or  nothing to do with pitbulls. Instead the entire case pretty much involved HSUS trying to claim that any depiction of  alleged animal cruelty is illegal because it is on same level as ‘child porn’–which is an exception in the law [adult porn is legal, but actual filmed killing not legal]  Let’s recall the HSUS numerous RAIDS on selected owners and kennels across the country?  Let’s recall that Floyd Boudreaux’s dogs were all slaughtered en masse, no evidence preserved?  Let’s recall that Boudreaux was completely exonerated of any fight charges at trial?

HSUS kills dogs because they can get away with it. In Louisiana, HSUS helped pass a law there which says that “alleged” fighting dogs can be killed instantly. All it takes is the allegation. HSUS made sure that  written into Louisiana law, was the phrase that alleged fighting dogs were to be considered as contraband.

OK how is this for an alleged fighting chicken?

How About alleged Fighting Dog?

How about ALLEGED animal “abuse?” 

 While contraband is normally something which is illegal to possess [certain narcotics, weapons, etc]—surely the term “fighting” dog is not proven simply by ALLEGATION.  If anyone challenged that Louisiana law, it would surely bring a finding of unconstitutional, since the evidence [dog itself] is allowed to be destroyed based on ALLEGATION.  Apparently there is no need to preserve evidence in Louisiana?  On the other hand, maybe in Louisiana they were led to believe that all dogs that resemble a generic “pitbull” IS a fighting dog—literally?  Everyone in Louisiana cannot be that stupid.

Let’s recall that HSUS wanted ALL of the Vick dogs killed—–but USED the Vick dogs as a marketing $$ deception ploy to gain DONATIONS?  What kind of true animal welfare group does THAT? None would. But Animal Rights HSUS does….. Blatantly.   And let’s not forget, HSUS got the Attorney General there to drop the charges of misconduct for fraud in taking Hurricane Katrina money from donors—and failing to show where it ALL went????    What is to stop anyone from having their dogs killed instantly? If HSUS/local SPCA raids your property on Friday, all of your dogs are as good as dead. At least in Louisiana– for now.

*The Washington Post (Robert Barnes, “Justices Cite Free Speech in Striking Down Animal-Cruelty Law”); The Wall Street Journal (Jess Bravin, “Supreme Court Strikes Down Prohibition on Depictions of Animal Cruelty”);

  • The New York Times (Adam Liptak, “Justices Void Law Banning Videos of Animal Cruelty”);
  • The Blog of Legal Times (Tony Mauro, “Supreme Court Strikes Down Ban on Animal Cruelty Videos”);
  • Bloomberg (Greg Stohr, “Animal ‘Crush Video’ Law Voided by U.S. Supreme Court”);
  • The WSJ Law Blog (Ashby Jones, “High Court Shoots Down Animal-Cruelty Law”);
  • CNN (Bill Mears, “Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Banning Dogfight Videos”);
  • The Associated Press (Mark Sherman, “Court Voids Law Aimed at Animal Cruelty Videos”);
  • USA Today (Joan Biskupic, “Supreme Court Kills Animal Cruelty Law”);
  • The Christian Science Monitor (Warren Richey, “Supreme Court Rejects Animal Cruelty Law, Upholds Free Speech”);
  • Reuters (James Vicini, “Supreme Court Strikes Down Animal Cruelty Law”);
  • ABC News (Ariane de Vogue, “Supreme Court Overturns Law Banning Depictions of Animal Cruelty”);
  • Fox News (Lee Ross, “Court: Animal Cruelty Image Law Too Broad”);
  • The BBC News (“US Court Ends Animal Cruelty Law”);
  • McClatchy (via the Miami Herald) (Michael Doyle, “Supreme Court Rejects Law Banning Animal-Cruelty Videos”);
  • Above the Law (David Lat, “SCOTUS Scuttles Ban on Animal Cruelty Videos”);
  • JURIST (Jaclyn Belczyk, “Supreme Court Strikes Down Animal Cruelty Video Ban”); and
  • ACSBlog (“High Court Strikes Federal Law Banning Depictions of Animal Cruelty”).
  • Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google photo

    You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

    Connecting to %s