Wayne Pacelle: A Humane Nation | The Humane Society of the United States

[Guest guest]

Forwarding the message.

 

" Wayne Pacelle: A Humane Nation " <blog wrote: Wayne

Pacelle: A Humane Nation h1 a:hover {background-color:#888;color:#fff !

important;} div#emailbody table#itemcontentlist tr td div ul {

list-style-type:square; padding-left:1em; } div#emailbody

table#itemcontentlist tr td div blockquote { padding-left:6px;

border-left: 6px solid #dadada; margin-left:1em; } div#emailbody

table#itemcontentlist tr td div li { margin-bottom:1em; margin-left:1em;

} table#itemcontentlist tr td a:link, table#itemcontentlist tr td

a:visited, table#itemcontentlist tr td a:active { color:#000099;

font-weight:bold; text-decoration:none; } img {border:none;}

Wayne Pacelle: A Humane Nation | The Humane Society of the United States

Now Showing: Animal Cruelty

Posted: 06 Jan 2009 04:00 PM CST

Adam Liptak in today’s New York Times wrote a measured piece about the legal

brouhaha over a 1999 law that The HSUS and the Doris Day Animal League helped to

pass to ban the commercial sale of videos depicting extreme and illegal acts of

animal cruelty. The legislation—carried with great skill by Congressman Elton

Gallegly, a stalwart friend to our cause—was prompted by an HSUS investigation

that uncovered an underground subculture of “animal crush†videos, where

women, often in high-heeled shoes, would impale and crush to death puppies,

kittens and other small animals, catering to those with a fetish for this

aberrant behavior. Surprisingly, we found thousands of separately produced

videos available for sale on the Internet—causing untold suffering to

thousands of animals.

Liptak notes that the Bush Administration’s Solicitor General has filed a

petition for certiorari, requesting review by the U.S. Supreme Court of an

appellate court’s ruling that the Cruelty Depictions Law is unconstitutional.

The appeals court ruled that animal cruelty is “not a compelling state

interest†and nullified the law because, according to the court, it proscribes

protected speech.

The Solicitor General noted in his brief that First Amendment jurisprudence

makes it plain that free speech guarantees are not absolute. The Supreme Court

explained in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) that “certain well-defined and

narrowly limited classes of speech†do not contribute to an “essential part

of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value†that

government may proscribe their content. The Solicitor also explained how, so

far, the Court has recognized that fighting words (speech inciting imminent

lawless activity), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969); defamation, Beauharnais v.

Illinois (1952); obscenity, Miller v. California (1973); child pornography,

Ferber (1982); and solicitations to engage in illegal activity, United States v.

Williams (2008), all are so far from the concerns actually animating the First

Amendment that they are entitled to no Constitutional protection.

While we are staunch believers in the First Amendment here at The HSUS, we

balk at the absolutism of some self-proclaimed First Amendment advocates. Some

have claimed that there is a First Amendment right to advertise illegal

dogfights and cockfights, and we think the law is clear that such promotions may

constitutionally be criminalized. When it comes to video of illegal acts of

animal torture that are inflicted solely for the purpose of selling the videos

for profit, we also stand on firm terrain. Stopping animal cruelty is a

compelling state interest—not only because our society values animals and

their well-being, but also because people who perpetrate these acts of cruelty

are often involved in other criminal behavior, including violence against

people. What’s more, the peddlers of these animal snuff films are not making

an argument or expressing a viewpoint—they are simply profiting from appalling

animal cruelty. If the core behavior is criminal, so should the

commercial profit of the sale of the videotaped torment of the victims.

It’s quite difficult to catch dogfighters in the act, though we are getting

better at sniffing out these criminals all the time. But if we can’t catch

them in the act, must we stand aside as they stage dogfights for the purpose of

selling thousands of videos for profit to titillate viewers with an interest in

this despicable behavior? And must we allow them to victimize more dogs while

they create the newest DVDs depicting their perverse and illegal form of

recreation? We won’t stand by, and that’s why we lobbied for enactment of

the law.

And when it comes to women stepping on animals for the sexual gratification of

viewers, that, too, crosses any standard of decency and humanity, and here the

law must speak. There is no speech present in these films, just torture. We

wouldn’t allow people to sell videos of people actually abusing children or

raping women, and the same legal principles are at hand with malicious acts of

cruelty, which are a felony in some form in every state. The federal Cruelty

Depictions Law is an essential complement to the state anti-cruelty and

anti-animal fighting laws, which alone do not equip law enforcement with the

tools to stamp out the national and international traffic in the videos, which

are anonymously produced and staged for the sole purpose of inflicting cruelty

to animals.

Our thanks to the Solicitor General for appealing the case, and our thanks to

Congress for its overwhelming passage (unanimous in the Senate) of this law

nearly a decade ago. The HSUS will muster all of its legal and political

resources to argue for a reversal of the appellate court’s ruling if the

Supreme Court grants review. Until the appellate court’s ill-considered

opinion is remedied, I am afraid we will see more miscreants victimizing more

animals. These people should find no defense in the First Amendment, especially

in the era of commercial trade on the Internet.

 

 

 

Email Delivery powered by FeedBurner

 

 

 

 

Enjoy life and smile.