- The Washington Times - Monday, April 26, 2010

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

In U.S. v. Stevens, the Supreme Court struck down a federal statute that would have criminalized certain depictions of animal cruelty (“Court voids law on animal cruelty videos,” Web, Nation, Tuesday). The genesis of this law was to prevent the distribution of crush videos, a genre of film in which women in sexy shoes and lingerie stomp, crush and kill a small animal. The reason, very generally stated, was that the law was written in such a way that it was too broad and could capture conduct either legal or unintended. Additionally, there is always scrutiny where a perceived encroachment upon First Amendment rights occurs with the additional imposition of criminal liability resulting from the behavior.

The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Los Angeles was involved in crush-video cases, and I can tell you, the evidence was very difficult for me to watch. I fear that this decision will send the message that one can produce these and other horrendous animal snuff films at a substantial profit. Whether I agree or not with the decision (I have argued both sides at various forums), I find it important that the Supreme Court is vigilant in guarding against any erosion of our First Amendment rights.

Rather than whine about a “set back,” blog about the disappointment and tweet about “bad” judges, let us draft a federal statute that will pass constitutional muster, using the guidelines provided by this decision. If our federal lawmakers don’t wish to do so - let us pass laws state by state similar to California Civil Code 3505, which addresses the showing of programs involving animal cruelty, to force those who would like to engage in such behavior to litigate in all 50 states. Please, also remember that in all states, filming an act of cruelty is still a crime.

MADELINE BERNSTEIN

President, Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Los Angeles

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide