Media Brief Supports Seller of Dogfight Videos in Supreme Court Case
The New York Times and other news organizations have filed a brief supporting the First Amendment argument of a film producer sentenced to 37 months in prison for selling dogfight videos.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on Oct. 6 as it weighs whether to uphold a law barring depictions of animal cruelty, the New York Times reports. The issue is whether the court should “for the first time in a generation designate a category of expression as so vile that it deserves no protection under the First Amendment,” the story says. “The last time the court did that was in 1982; the subject was child pornography.”
The media brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court argues the 1999 law imperils its ability to report on issues related to articles, according to the Times. The Humane Society, on the other hand, argues in an amicus brief that “gruesome depictions of animal mutilation targeted” by the law “simply do not merit the dignity of full First Amendment protection.”
The law bars depictions of animal cruelty if the conduct is illegal where the video is sold, even though the conduct may have been legal where it occurred, the story says. The law contains an exception for materials with “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value.”
Film producer Robert J. Stevens, who is challenging the law, says his videos are educating others about the nature and history of pit bulls. He also advances a First Amendment argument. “There have never been any laws against speech depicting the killing or wounding of animals from the time of the First Amendment’s adoption through the intervening two centuries,” Stevens’ brief argues.
Prior coverage:
ABAJournal.com: “Supreme Court to Weigh Law Barring Videos of Animal Cruelty”
ABAJournal.com: “Supreme Court Could Hear Challenge to Law Barring Animal Cruelty Videos”
