U.S. Supreme Court annuls law against animal cruelty

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a law banning videos showing cruelty to animals, arguing that the rule violates the rights of freedom of expression.

The 8-1 decision the high court was a victory for proponents of free speech and a defeat for the federal government and groups like the Humane Society of the United States.

The Congress passed the law in 1999 in an attempt to prevent some people from benefiting from the interstate sale of representations of the torture and killing of animals. Was mainly aimed at the videos for “crushing” in which women with high-heeled shoes trample small animals in a form of sexual fetishism.

Opponents of the law had argued that it was too broad and too vague, and that became some videos of illegal blood sports like bullfighting or hunti1000ng, and even some documentaries.

They said that the standard should be rejected as a form of government censorship.

Chief Justice John Roberts, on behalf of the majority of the court, said the law was too broad and therefore invalid under the protections freedom of expression to be found in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

While the prohibition of cruelty to animals has a long tradition in American law, there is no evidence a similar tradition prohibiting depictions of the cruelty, “said Roberts.

Roberts refused to carve a new category of free speech is not protected by the First Amendment. The court created last exception, relating to child pornography, more than 25 years.

David Horowitz, executive director of a group called the Media Coalition, applauded the ruling. “If the court had to rewrite the First Amendment every time an issue unpopular or distasteful was at stake, we would have no any freedom of expression,” he said.

CALL NEW ANIMAL PROTECTION LAW

Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, called on Congress to pass a law more restrictive.

“Congress should act quickly to ensure that the First Amendment is not used as a shield to commit such barbaric acts of cruelty, then peddling their videos online, “said Pacelle.

court ruled in favor of Robert Stevens of Virginia, who made and sold three videos of pitbull dog fighting and attacking each other pigs and wild boars.

His conviction in 2005 was the first in the country under the new law. Stevens was sentenced to 37 months in prison, but had not yet begun to comply with pending appeal.

Stevens” lawyers said that his sentence was 14 months older than the professional football player Michael Vick for running a dog fighting network. Vick has served his sentence and resumed his career.

Laws in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, along with several other federal regulations already prohibit cruelty to animals.

The Justice Department lawyers had argued that the videos of cruelty to animals should be treated as child pornography, and not subject to any constitutional protection. Usually, videos and other representations are protected as free speech, even showing an aberrant behavior.

Only the judge Samuel Alito disagreed, saying the law could be perfectly applied to at least two major categories of expression: the videos of “crushing” and dogfighting.

Alito said the law was passed to prevent horrific acts of cruelty to animals, not to suppress freedom of expression. “The First Amendment protects freedom of expression, but it almost certainly does not protect violent criminal conduct,” he wrote.

The Supreme Court case is United States v. Stevens, No. 08-769.

(Translated by the editors of Madrid)