Today, the Supreme Court struck down a ruling banning the publication or sale of videos showing women in high heels crushing kittens and puppies to death, innocent dogs tearing off each other’s ears, and the like.
[Chief Justice John] Roberts said the law could be read to allow the prosecution of the producers of films about hunting. And he scoffed at the administration’s assurances that it would only apply the law to depictions of extreme cruelty. ”But the First Amendment protects against the government,” Roberts said. ”We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the government promised to use it responsibly.”
The plaintiff, a man named Robert Stevens, had previously been sentenced by a Pennsylvania court to three years in prison for producing videos of pitbulls fighting. His new sentence is that he will have to film himself fighting pitbulls (JK!) In all seriousness, this is the kind of thing that grosses people out about the First Amendment. It’s great for bashing politicians, protesting the Republican National Convention, and telling your city’s code enforcrement guy to get bent, because the lawn gnomes are here to stay. But kittens getting crushed? Such folks–buyers and sellers alike–are scum.
Here’s the problem with that thinking: It’s not just sickos who promote videos of animals getting tortured, it’s part of PETA’s bread and butter as well (not for the faint of heart):
The Obama White House promised it “would only apply the law to depictions of extreme cruelty,” and would probably have exempted PETA’s activist videos–perhaps on the grounds of free speech. But seeing as PETA uses these videos to solicit donations, one probably could have argued that they were “selling” the image of animals being abused and killed. After all, it’s not like an anti-child porn NGO could use child porn videos to solicit donations–a law is a law.
For a more nuanced take on how this ruling protects groups like PETA, see the Volokh Conspiracy.