United States v. Stevens: Win, Loss, or Draw for Animals?
An Animal Rights Article from All-Creatures.org

FROM

David N. Cassuto, Humane Research Council (HRC)
April 2014

When it was applied in a case of dog-fighting videos (U.S. v. Stevens), the law was struck down for being overly broad, and a narrower law was enacted. The author analyzes underlying legal issues, especially whether animal protection can override free speech rights.

Short Description

In 1999, a law against depictions of animal cruelty was enacted to criminalize fetish videos of women trampling small animals to death ("crush videos"). When it was applied in a case of dog-fighting videos (U.S. v. Stevens), the law was struck down for being overly broad, and a narrower law was enacted. The author analyzes underlying legal issues, especially whether animal protection can override free speech rights. Since the new law specifies a state interest in extreme cases of animal cruelty, the author argues that animal protection law was ultimately advanced due to the Stevens case, even though the conviction was thrown out.

Abstract

"Robert Stevens was indicted for marketing dog-fighting videos in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 48, a law criminalizing depictions of animals being “intentionally mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed…” The law aimed principally at “crush videos,” but extended to dog-fighting as well. Stevens challenged the law’s constitutionality and the Supreme Court eventually struck it down. This article explores whether the Stevens decision will have lasting implications for animal cruelty jurisprudence. It argues that the answer is “maybe, but probably not.” In Stevens, the Court skirted the question of whether preventing animal cruelty can rise to the level of compelling state interest. Ironically, its avoidance of the issue may constitute a net positive for animal advocacy." 

See 19-page article - United States v. Stevens: Win, Loss, or Draw for Animals?

---

Return to Animal Rights Articles