The former federal law prohibiting the creation and distribution of “crush videos” did not cover the underlying acts of animal abuse, which can occur beyond the reach of state cruelty laws. The PACT Act closes that loophole by extending federal jurisdiction to these specific, particularly heinous crimes. The PACT Act is consistent with other federal laws that address acts of malicious animal cruelty that have an interstate nexus. Under legislation currently before the US Congress, federal jurisdiction will extend to certain heinous and unspeakable acts of animal abuse.
Also read Landmark animal rights legislation signed into law!
[Note from Robert Grillo, Free From Harm: New Federal animal cruelty law reinforces the myth that the billions exploited for food or any other established economic purpose do not suffer from cruelty or abuse.]
The PACT Act makes some of the most egregious forms of animal cruelty in or affecting interstate commerce or within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States a federal crime.
he federal law prohibiting the creation and distribution of “crush
videos” does not cover the underlying acts of animal abuse, which can occur
beyond the reach of state cruelty laws. The PACT Act closes that loophole by
extending federal jurisdiction to these specific, particularly heinous
crimes. The PACT Act is consistent with other federal laws that address acts
of malicious animal cruelty that have an interstate nexus. Under legislation
currently before the US Congress, federal jurisdiction will extend to
certain heinous and unspeakable acts of animal abuse.
In so-called “crush videos,” individuals viciously torture, mutilate, and
kill small animals to satisfy the bizarre fetishes of viewers. In 2010,
Congress passed and President Obama signed the Animal Crush Video
Prohibition Act (PL 111-294), banning the creation and distribution of
these videos [This law replaces the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act
of 1999 (PL 106-152), which in 2010 the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional
on the grounds that the language was so broad that it could have applied to
activities protected by the First Amendment.]
This was a crucial step to take. However, that law does not
cover the underlying acts of animal cruelty themselves, which are generally
offenses under state law subject to prosecution by the states. However,
since it isn’t always known where the actual acts of cruelty took place, it
can be hard to bring a case under state law. In affirming the
constitutionality of the 2010 crush video law as “narrowly tailored and
facially valid as a restriction on obscene speech,” the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals also “acknowledged that because of the ‘clandestine manner in
which animal crush videos are made,’ it is difficult for state law
enforcement agencies to target the underlying cruelty that these videos
depict—furthering the need for the [2010 crush video] act.”
To close that loophole and address these egregious forms of abuse, the PACT
Act would do the following:
Preventing and punishing such cruelty is both an animal welfare and a public health imperative. More and more, the law enforcement and legal communities recognize that animal cruelty is both a serious crime in and of itself and a precursor or gateway to other violent crimes. The evidence is compelling:
By providing law enforcement and the criminal justice system with another tool for responding to such unspeakable acts of animal cruelty, the PACT Act protects our communities from many forms of violence.
Return to: Litigation