KC DOG BLOG

Dog fighting/Crush Videos, the Constitution, & some Clarification on the US vs Stevens

Earlier this week, I noted that the Supreme Court of the United States has released it's decision on the Case U.S. vs Stevens. I posted earlier this week, as soon as I heard the news, but before I had a chance to read the full decision. Now, after having some time to spend with the full decision, as well as reading the thoughts of others, I wanted to clarify some stuff for people who haven't had the opportunity to read the full decision.

For starters, contrary to what most of the media reports have said, SCOTUS did NOT rule that dog fighting videos and crush videos were protected under the 1st Amendment.

They ruled that the federal law that was being used in this case was substantially overbroad and included far more types of "speech" than just dogfighting videos and crush videos.  They are right in that decision, and we should applaud their decision.

And we should also make steps to create a more narrow law that -- based on what was written in Alito's dissenting opinion - was left open for discussion by SCOTUS.

First, let's talk about the law that was ruled Unconstitutional.

The law that was struct down made it illegal to sell or possess any visual or auditory depiction "in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed" where the "creation, sale or possessoin takes place".

A separate clause exempts depictions with "Serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value."

The case vs Stevens was centered 100% around his creating and making of dogfighting videos and the testimony included only reasoning why this activity should not be protected by the 1st Amendment. However, the court noted that by the way the law was written, it could be applied to a variety of different types of hunting videos as different types of hunting are not all universally legal in all 50 states (think in terms of hunting with crossbows, bows, hand guns, and hunting of different types of animals which may be legal in some states, but not others).

Because the exceptions clause (particularly centered around the word "serious") was very narrow in scope and thus, allowed for way more types of conduct to be applied as not protected under the 1st Amendment than what the prosecution and lawmakers intended.  According to the ruling: "there is simply no adequate reading of the exceptions clause that results in the statutes banning only the depictions the Government would like to ban.....To read (the law) as the Government desires requires rewriting, not just reinterpretation."

The court's decision seems like the correct one. So what do we do now? The court's ruling has left an opening for us to create a new law that would be narrowly focused on dogfighting videos and crush videos.  In fact, there is already some movement in drafting such legislation.

Creating areas that are not protected by the 1st Amendment is not new. While the 1st Amendment remains probably our most protected amendment (and with good reason), the courts have historically allowed for certain areas to be restricted -- including obscenity (child porn), defamation (slander), fraud, incitement (yelling "fire" at a theater) and speech integration to criminal conduct (bomb/death threats).

In Alito's dissent, he notes many reasons why SCOTUS would potential rule a law that narrowly targeted dog fighting and crush videos would be considered an exception to 1st Amendment protection -- which include:

1) the videos show footage of activity that  inflicts a severe injury

2) the activities are illegal in every state in the U.S.

3) targeting the videos can reasonably used to target the underlying crimes that they depict

4) The value of the videos to society would be "exceedingly modest" and such value would be "overwhelmingly outweighted by the evil it restricted."

5) The government has a compellling interest in preventing the torture depicted in the videos.

With all respect to the 1st Amendment, I would be happy to see a well-crafted, narrowly targeted law on just Crush videos and dogfighting videos and see if it would hold up under SCOTUS scrutiny.

It looks like we may well soon get to see it.

For more points of views (for thoughts on both sides):

Dogfighting videos = free speech, Part II -- well done from Chistine at Bad Rap

Supreme Court Listens to NRA in Striking Ban on Crush Videos - Animal Law Coalition

For those of you who are upset - Raised by Wolves

US v Stevens, The Post Mortem - Animal Blawg

Updated: U.S. Supreme Court rules that dog fighting videos are ok

Updated: Here's a copy of the full ruling. I've not had a chance to read it yet -- and will likely comment more when I get the opportunity.

Not a lot of information on this yet -- but CNN is reporting that the federal law designed to stop the sale and marketing of videos showing dog fights and other acts of animal cruelty (specifically crush videos) is unconstitutional and a violation of the First Amendment guaranteeing us free speech.

I'm all for free speech, but I had really hoped the Courts would rule that dog fighting, and supreme acts of animal cruelty would fall under the same types of "exceptions" to free speech as child pornography.

I realize it's a slippery slope when you start making exceptions for the first amendment -- but there really isn't a reason for the gruesome video footage to exist -- let alone be profitted from in this country.

I feel like the point of the 1st Amendment has been lost -- and that the reason the Amendment was put into place was that our founders thought that true democracy could only exist if people were allowed to question and criticize our government. Losing the ability to profit off of animal cruelty videos (which includes HSUS fundraising off of their video footage) does not threaten our democracy in any way.

I'll probably have more to say on this one when more news and reasons come out for it. But my initial reaction is of disappointment in the Supreme Court decision.

H/T to a host of people on Twitter for this one.

More on Denver Lawsuits and a Councilwoman with an agenda

So, yesterday I posted a note about three cities that are currently struggling with their breed bans - -one of which was Denver.

Then, after I made the post, even more information has come out about Denver's struggles -- and about the city council woman I accused of hiding behind her constituents and instead of doing what was "right", was bowing to the will of the voters. But it's worse than I thought.

First, For The Pit Bulls posted more information about the upcoming lawsuit the city is facing -- and really, it seems like you can only dream up the mess that they've created.

The case centers around three plaintiffs that are filing complaints that their rights were violated under the Amercians With Disabilities Act. Two of the victims are military veterans whose dogs were service dogs helping them deal with post-traumatic stress disorder (we've seen this come up before in other places). The third, was a disabled UKC Show judge whose dog also acted as a service dog. One of the military veterans' complaint is that he was also forced to sign inciminating paperwork to insure the dog's safety -- even after he advised Denver law enforcement that he was illiterate and unable to read the documents they were forcing him to sign.

You can read the entire lawsuit -- in its entirety -- here.

Meanwhile, also yesterday, I criticized city councilwoman Jeanne Faatz for defending Denver's breed ban, in spite of the mounting lawsuits and wasted tax dollars, hiding behind "it's the will of my voters" as her excuse.

Turns out, Ms. Faatz's survey is, at best, misleading.

One kind reader emailed me a copy of Ms. Faatz' 20o5 survey, where we can see the actual survey questions.  It's question 4 - -you can read it here for yourself.  But here it is in all its glory:

Denver enacted a pit bull ban many years ago because this breed of dog has shown particularly dangerous tendencies, especially their ability to inflict severe damage when they attack. Opponents of pit bull bans say it is unfair to single out any specific breed because temperament of an individual dog within a breed can vary. Do you support continuing to ban pit bulls in Denver?

Interestingly, in the 2005 survey, 15% of people opposed the ban -- that number is now up to 23% even though I'm sure the question is still leadingly worded.  In my actual job, we do a lot of surveys and I see the answers to a lot of survey questions. And how a question is worded is very influential to the outcome of the survey.  But I think it would be interesting to rewrite the question and see what type of response she got.  Here's a recommendation:

Many years ago, Denver enacted a ban on 'pit bulls'.  Most estimates say that the city is spending about a quarter of a million dollars on enforcing the ban and the city is now spending tens of thousands of dollars settling lawsuits and on legal council to deal with more pending lawsuits -- all at a time when the city is facing a $120 million budget shortfall.  No national organization of experts on canine/human interactions - -including Veterinarians, Dog Trainers, Rescues, and Animal Control officers - thinks that breed bans are effective or necessary legislation. Proponents of the law admit they have not studied the actual effectiveness of the law. Do you support continuing the ban on 'pit bulls'?

Dear Ms. Faatz. Quit hiding behind your biased survey question for your support of the ban. Quit harrassing military veterans and other people with disabilities. And quite wasting taxpayer dollars.

 

Lakewood, OH Faces Lawsuit in fallout from Mistaken Breed Identification

Two years ago, the city of Lakewood passed a ban on all 'pit bulls' in the community. Last may, as a part of their enforcement of the ban, the city began harrassing a man, Leonard Shelton, because they said the dog he owned was a 'pit bull'.

Shelton, a military veteran who's dog,Roscoe, was helping him deal with post tramatic stress following his service overseas, claimed his dog was not a 'pit bull'.

After constant harrassment by city officials -- including animal control and the police department - Shelton went out and got a DNA test done on Roscoe. The test results showed that Roscoe was indeed, not a 'pit bull'. But police persisted. And after constant harrassment, Shelter decided to pack up Roscoe and move from town.

You can catch all of the back story here.

Now, Shelton is levying a lawsuit against the city of Lakewood -- to the tune of $475,000 for emotional and financial damages  (including forced relocation).  Shelton's suit claims that the city, and it's police department, are negligent in hiring, training and supervising staff to enforce the new law, negligent misrepresentation and because of the malicious discrimination, violated his civil rights and intentionally inflicted emotional distress. The lawsuit goes on to say that the city is using the pit bull ban to force out individuals it has judged to be "undesireable or unsavory." 

It is probably worth mentioning here that Lakewood is a community that is 92% white, and Leonard Shelton is a minority.

You can read the entire complaint here.

Like most cities across the US, Lakewood has been struggling with balancing its budget --facing a $4.5 million deficit just two years ago -- which is a lot of money for a community of just 50,000 people that has seen a 10% decrease in population over the past decade.  It would seem that harrassing a military veteran, who's dog showed no signs of aggression, wouldn't be the highest priority for the city -- and certainly not something the taxpayers of the city would prefer to pay half a million dollars in doing.

Cities with breed specific legislation from around the country continue to struggle with the enforcement of the laws and with the difficulties of breed identification. And Lakewood is joining the growing list of cities facing legal ramifications.

Which begs the question, why would any city subject themselves to this and harrass owners of well-behaved dogs instead of instituting a behavior-based ordinance that only focuses on aggressive dogs regardless of breed?

H/T: toLoveLakewood Blog on the story.

More Legal Problems for the City of Denver (and Aurora too)

Last week I noted that the city of Denver had reached a settlement in one of their pending lawsuits -- and now, face a couple of more legal challenges.

Last week, the city reached an interim settlement that includes a temporary restraining order against the cities of Denver and suburban Aurora, Colorado. The restraining order is protecting three people (at least one of which is a US Military Veteran -- Veterans with service dogs have been victims of BSL before in other places), and their dogs, from being prosecuted under the 'pit bull' bans in the two juristictions because they are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The stipulation is being filed as part of a class action lawsuit in the Federal Court seeking permanent relief from having a service dog impounded based solely on its breed.

While the two cities have temporarily agreed to refrain from enforcing their breed specific ordinances as it relates to service dogs, the Animal Law Center, who is leading the lawsuit, is seeking to permanently protect the rights of service dogs owners from pursuant to the ADA from suffering discrimination based solely on the breed of their service dog.

The settlement is an obvious one for the cities -- as people have a lot of protection under the ADA and all of the people involved have legitimate needs for their service dogs.

Meanwhile, this lawsuit -- yet another one for the city of Denver -- again exemplifies the ridiculousness of the city's breed ban as they face even more litigation against them for a law that is being used to 'protect' people from dogs that are being used as service dogs. The law in Denver continues to be an ineffective law that is creating unnecessary expenses for the city.

Aurora, for its part, continues to suffer the financial burden of their law even though the city's 2 year report showed that they reversed a 3 year decline in dog bites with their new law and saw a 26% increase in dog bites two years after passing the law.  So now, they are using taxpayer money to defend a law in court that has statistically proven to have had the opposite effect that was intended.

Taxpayers, dog owners and citizens deserve better than this. And as voters in these communities it is imperative that you vote people out of office who are insisting on wasting your taxpayer dollars to defend ineffective laws to support their personal agendas.

More on this from NCRC and from Colorado Pit Bull Rescue

Denver (and its Taxpayers) stay losing due to Denver Breed Ban

The city of Denver - and its taxpayers -- continue to be victims of the city's breed ban that they so stubbornly hold onto.

Last year, Desiree Arnold (among others) filed a legal suite against the city of Denver for a variety of both written and executional violations associated with Denver's law banning 'pit bulls'. Among the legal violations that are mentioned:

1) The policy and practice of coercing the signing of waivers that violate due process rights. Like many cities with BSL, Denver coerces dog owners to sign a waiver that does help the owner save the life of the dog, but in the process, forces them to admit that the dog is one of the breeds included in the city ban, which violates due process rights.

2) Slowly scheduling hearings which causes dogs to be removed from homes for longer-than-necessary periods of time.

3) Lack of clarity on how evaluators determine the breed of dog -- which forces dog owners to guess at the evidentiary basis for the city's determination and deprives them of a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Ms. Arnold's dog, Coco, was killed by the city during this process.

Word now is that the city of Denver has settled with Ms. Arnold in what is in the multiple thousands of dollars. In addition to the settlement, the city of Denver has also agreed to make some procedural changes to the enforcement of the ordinance that will begin this spring.

But that's not the only waythe city of Denver stays losing.

Because the Denver city attorney's office is short staffed, it has been confirmed through Colorado Open Records Act Requests that the city has now hired an outside lawfirm to handle the case of Dias vs Denver.  The Dias case was revived last May after a judge overturned a dismissal of the case back in March of 2008.  In just the months of December and January, the city-hired lawfirm has racked up over $15,000 in fees (all at taxpayer expense) to get up to speed on the Dias case.

There also may be one, or more, other lawsuits that are pending.

Of course, it's hard to miss the irony of this when Cory Nelson, Denver's now overworked city attorney, has been caught sending letters supporting breed bans to cities around the country on city letterhead stating, among other things, that concerns about litigation are mostly unfounded -- in spite of the number of suits his city is currently dealing with at a time when the city is facing a $160 million budget shortfall.

All of this to support an ordinance that even those who support it admit they have never done an audit to see if it is actually working to improve public safety.  On top of the extreme costs the city is facing due to litigation, the difficulty of breed identification continues to haunt the city, just like it has in all others who have dealt with the issue.

And this folks, is a reason why cities like Jackson, MS and Elgin, IL are deciding AGAINST breed-based policies and instead focusing on behavior-based ordinances that focus precious animal control resources only on problem dogs, and not any others, and avoids all of the problems that breed-specific policies create.

And for you folks in Florida, where SB 1276 would overturn the statewide law that prohibits laws just like the one in Denver, vote that law down. BSL is a huge waste of taxpayer resources and dollars, and citizens need to be protected from corrupt governments and wasteful laws like this.

Groundhog's Day in Toledo

You've probably seen the Bill Murray movie Groundhog Day-- or at least know the premise -  where a TV weatherman finds himself waking up and reliving the same day over and over again.

So one must feel like it was with some form of irony that on actual Ground Hog's Day, the city of Toledo announced that they plan to appeal last month's court ruling that the city's breed specific regulations are unconstitutional.  They've lived through this story before.

To be fair, it sounds like they are less concerned about the dog law at this point than the perceived hit on their Home Rule powers based on the decision.

"We are appealing it, not necessarily on the basis of the dog law itself," said Deputy Mayor of Operations Steve Herwat. "It's more of a larger concern than any time our home-rule power is challenged, we believe we need to stand up for the city's rights to appeal."

That seems to be an honest enough statement. Tonight, the city council will meet to discuss the option of forming a Dog Warden Advisory committee that can recommend making changes to the city's breed specific law.

"What I personally want to see is a dangerous dog ordinance that deals with all dangerous dogs and how they need to be kept when off someone's property, and what are the penalties against owners whose dogs either bite another dog, person or damage property," said committee chairman Steve Serchuk.

Serchuk joins Council President Joe McNamara who also would like the breed specific law changed.

Residents in and around Toledo need to go tonight and encourage the city to form this task group. At a time when the city is facing a $44 million budget deficit, the city, and its citizens, can ill afford the groundhog's day of continually going to court and challenging, and appealing, the city's dog law.

Toledo Law Ruled Unconstitutional - Why, and what's that mean?

Last week, I reported that Toledo municiple judge, Michael Goulding, ruled the city's dangerous dog ordinance was unconstitutional.   The ruling has been greeted with a strange combination of excitement, and confusion, among the animal welfare communities.

The ruling is great, but haven't we already been down this road before?

It sure seems like it -- so what makes this case different?  With that in mind, I'm going to do my best to explain why this case is different from previous cases, and what this may mean for 'pit bulls' in the state of Ohio if the decision stands. I'm going to do this with my usual caveat in these cases:  I am not a lawyer. I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. But I am familiar with all of the precedent cases -- and have sought out a couple of lawyers to be sure I'm on the right path. But PLEASE use this for guidance only, and do not act on it legally without the help of someone who is truly a trained legal professional. Because that I'm not.

So, with that out of the way, let's talk about the case.

In its simplest form,  judge Goulding's ruling essentially declared Toledo's ordinance to be in violation of the constition under two, overarching themes.

1) Due Process for "pit bull mixes and non-pit bull" dogs.

One of the major precedents set forth in prior cases was that restrictions on 'breeds commonly known to be pit bulls" were not void for vagueness because breed standards from the AKC/UKC could be used to identify physical traits for dogs 'commonly known to be pit bulls"; and that 'pit bulls' "possess unique and readily identifiable physical and behaviortrats which are capable of recognition both by dog owners of ordinary intelligence and by enforcement personnel."

In the most recent case, unlike the others, the dogs in question were Cane Corsos, not 'pit bulls."  And because Cane Corsos (and in the case, the judge specifically points out mixed breed "pit bulls" along with Cane Corsos) does not meet the precedents set forth in previous cases because the dogs could not "reasonably" be determined to be pit bulls, because they don't contain enough of the physical and behavioral traits necessary to do so.

Essentially, this ruling now makes breed specific legislation in Ohio for anything beyond 'purebred' American Pit Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers very problematic -- meaning that they would have to go through all due processes and puts more pressure on cities with laws pertaining to mixed breeds and other breeds, like cane corsos, that declaring these types of  dogs dangerous without due process is "unreasonable and arbitrary."

2) Violation of Home Rule Policy

States have authority over cities....and thus, cities cannot pass laws that contradict state laws. If a state specifically makes something illegal, a city cannot make it legal. And if the state makes something specifically legal, the city cannot make it illegal.

The state of Ohio is the only state to have some form of breed specific legislation - -that calls for owners to have to provide a form of specific containment for a "vicious" dog (which all pit bulls are under the state law) that includes either a pen, fasten or muzzle.  However, the Toledo law mandates muzzling.  Thus, the Toledo law specifically prohibits, say, keeping a 'pit bull' in a pen, which the state law allows -- making the Toledo law unconstitutional because it violates home rule policy.

---------------------------------------------------

What does this all mean? Maybe not much. Maybe a lot. For sure, Toledo is going to have to restructure their law. The good news is that the city has been talking about repealing their BSL anyway and just reverting to the state law...this case will provide them a good reason to do this.

It seems likely that other cities in Ohio that have laws in place that include 'pit bull' mixes or other "pit bull type" dogs will have to provide due process to the people that are accused of having a "vicious" dog.  They may struggle in general upholding prosecuting mixed breeds because the prosecution could be said to be arbitrary under this ruling. This has now made breed identification for anything other than the purest-looking 'pit bull' a huge issue in the state of Ohio.

It also seems that any BSL in the state that doesn't exactly mirror the state law may also be unconstitutional - because the state law stipulates that you can own a 'pit bull' under certain circumstances, any city law that has harsher criteria may be found to be contradictory to the state law.

The reality is that the judge's conclusions may sum up what is best for the cities in Ohio (and elsewhere).  Here is his conclusion:

"The court is aware of the current state of flux in which the law regarding the regulation of dogs finds itself. Certainly this issue has raised great and legitimate concerns at many levels among people  of both care and compassion. Local and state legislative authorities are currently wrestling with amendments to these laws and courts across the state continue to grapple with statutes, ordinances, and cases concerning the subject. Certainly a more uniform, practical and humane method of regulating dogs, which both preserves the safety of the public and focuses on the dangers and misdeeds of irresponsible dog owners, would seem preferable to the status quo." (Emphasis Mine)

Yes, that is one of our judges that is charged with interpreting our laws, that is recommending a dramatic change to the status quo in Ohio for dealing with dogs -- and for the second time in a little over a year, lawmakers have gotten a similar statement from a judge in Ohio.

This ruling could mean very little. Individual cities in Ohio could just continue to fight their constituents and continue to waste tax dollars going to court defending their laws -- making precedents for every single possible scenerio under the law. Or, they could realize that the judge is right, that there are fairer ways to inprove public safety by focusing on careless and irresponsible dog owners and not dog breeds that will free up our court system to deal with other issues and save taxpayer funds defending these ridiculous laws.

Let's hope for the latter.

You can read the entire ruling on the most recent case here. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Toledo: Puppies got second chance, Support for BSL Repeal, & BSL Found Unconstitutional -- again

In the first month after Lucas County, OH puppy killer Tom Skeldon's resignation (and even after he announced his resignation), things have gotten a lot better for the dogs in Lucas County and Toledo.

And things may get much better soon.

On November 18th, long time dog warden Tom Skeldon announced his resignation.  Since then, the winds of change have been blowing quickly.

At the end of 2009, the county saw a dramatic increase in adoptions and dogs transfered from the shelter. In total, 682 dogs were adopted from the shelter -- 190 more than the previous year. However, about 1/3 of the adoptions (225-ish) occurred in the last 2 months of the year -- many after Skeldon's announced resignation. It isn't completely clear whether the increase was due to increased publicity surrounding the shelter (courtesy of the Toledo Blade) or if it was because of people showing the support for the shelter now that Skeldon was leaving is unclear....but either way, it's been good for the dogs.

Earlier this week, Lucas County Commissioners unanimously voted to reverse a long-time shelter policy prohibiting all 'pit bulls' from being adopted out by the shelter by allowing all healthy pit bull puppies under the age of 3 months to be  transfered from the shelter to the local humane society. While the policy needs to be lifted to allow ALL pit bulls to be transferred, this is at least a good first step for the county shelter.

Also, while all of this is going on, the Toledo City Council (Toledo is the largest city in Lucas County) has been mulling over the idea of removing their breed specific legislation. The City is looking at instituting a dog advisory panel to provide recommendations for what the new dangerous dog ordinance would look like without being breed specific. The city admittedly went on the advice of Tom Skeldon for how the laws are written, but now, with him out of the picture, they are looking at other options. "I think we can potentially define vicious without being breed specific," said council member Rob Ludeman. "That is one thing I probably anticipate might come out of this advisory committee.

A court decision that came down yesterday may speed up that process.

The case was a situation where the Lucas County Dog Warden's office seized what it deemed to be three "pit bulls" from a Toledo man - -Hugh Smith - while Smith took his dogs for a walk. The warden cited Smith with 13 violations for having unmuzzled, uninsured, and improperly confined 'pit bulls', as well as having two 'pit bulls' over the limit of one in the county.

Yet Smith and his attorney's claimed that the dogs were in fact Cane Corsos. Yesterday, the Toledo municiple judge, Michael Goulding, not only ruled that Smith could keep his dogs, but also that the law was, in fact, unconstitutional.

One reason for Goulding's claim that the law was unconsitutional was that he said it violated the state home rule doctrine. "While the state statute does not specifically permit ownership of more than one dog 'commonly known as a pit bull', it does not prohibit it either."

Goulding also noted that the law lumping 'pit bulls' with 'pit bull mixed breed' dogs together was also unconstitutional.

This is the second time that the courts have ruled that the Toledo ordinance is unconstitutional -- and this case was declared unconstitutional for different reasons than the one that was overturned by the Ohio Supreme Court two years ago.

Toledo City Council President Joe McNamara, who was the one who initiated the look at changing Toledo's breed specific policy noted that the judges opinion:

 "Underscores the need for us to re-examine the city's policies concerning the regulation of dangerous dogs. I do think Judge Goulding was correct when he wrote that 'a more uniform, practical and humane method of regulating dogs, which both preserves the safety of the public and focuses on the dangers and misdeeds of the irresponsible dog owners would seem preferable to the status quo."

I don't have a copy of Goulding's final verdict, and will hopefully get my hands on a copy soon. But with the second ruling of the law being unconstitutional, and continuing public and city leader support for a repeal, it looks like a long-time law on the books in Toledo could be overturned soon.

BSL is a failed policy -- that is virtually impossible for cities to enforce without some level of arbitrary enforcement -- which opens the city up to a host of legal challenges. Toledo is just one of many cities that are finally wising up to this and looking toward behavior-based ordinances that are more effective and target irresponsible owners -- regardless of what breed they happen to own.

Some more on the court case at Animal Law Coalition.

 

Dogfighting Videos and First Amendment battle it out in the Surpeme Court

I'm going to be honest up front here. I'm not sure I have a strong point of view on this. I certainly am not going to condemn someone for theirs.  This is a hot-button topic and a lot of people have an interest in what is going on -- and there are an interesting two sides to the equation.

There is a major Supreme Court case will take place next Tuesday (Oct 6) -- and dogs -- specifically dog fighting videos -- is creating an interesting debate at the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case centers around a man named Robert Stevens. Stevens is a small-time film producer that was indicted, and convicted (earning himself a 37 month prsion sentence) of selling videos depicting dog-fighting - -an apparently violation of the 1999 federal law that bans trafficking videos with "depictions of animal cruelty".

It should be noted that the last time an entire category of  "expression" was deemed so vile that it was outlawed and denied protection under the first amendment was in 1982 and the subject was child pornography.

So this doesn't happen a lot.

And while it seems like, as a lover of animals, and as someone who despises animal cruelty on any level, and dog fighting in particular, I should be strongly in favor of the ruling against Stevens, it isn't as cut and dry as that.

And make no mistake, I know nothing about Mr. Stevens. I don't know if he really is an "educator" as he says he is, or a piece of crap scumbag like I imagine him to be.  This isn't about him personally at all. It's about what is best for the animals.

So let's look at issues.

There are a lot of reasons to root for Stevens to be found guilty, and videos of cruel actions against animals are found to not be protected by the Constitution.  If the videos are found to be legal, there would be no recourse for the sale of vivid videos of major animal cruelty. While the cruel acts themselves would still be illegal (which  would prevent it from being a free-for-all), it still would not prevent people from filming these acts in foreign countries (where the acts are not yet illegal) and distributing the videos here.

Forbidding the videos in total would prevent these horrendous acts from being visually available in the US (or at least making it criminal to distribute them).

While that all sounds great, there is a downside to this too.

The 1999 law applies to all video recordingsof "conduct in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed" -- as long as the act was illegal wherever the video was sold.  There is also an exception in the law about materials with "serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value."  Hmm, now we've gotten into some vagueness.

The reality is that videos showing horrible acts to animals have been proven to be used a lot over the years by the people who love and support animals. HSUS for YEARS has used video footage of dog fighting to bring education and awareness to this serious issue. The ASPCA and many other animal welfare groups would have similar footage used for similar reasons.

Meanwhile, this footage exists at nearly every  TV news station in the country -- as they all seemed to show the footage when a certain NFL player was convicted of dog fighting two years ago. The "serious" value of some of this footage  could be very much disputed. 

This could also extend to many other areas of videos that exist -- like video that shows factory farming, pharmaceutical testing, circuses and the slaughter of baby seals.  And often it is the "shock value" of this cruelty that sparks citizens to action.  Which is a good thing. While large organizations would likely be well protected by the ruling, individuals who are using footage in their own areas to try to bring an issue to light might be highly succeptable to imprisonment.

In all, I think I'd rather the videos themselves just go away...but I certainly understand the flip side of the coin.  Would love to hear your thoughts on the subject -- maybe it will help me sort through mine.

For more info:

Great article from the NY Times.

Another interesting look from the First Amendment Center.