The Washington Post
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court Tuesday indicated that Congress had gone too far afield in its attempt to prohibit depictions of animal cruelty, in an animated free speech argument that touched on bullfighting, cockfighting, dogfighting -- and even a hypothetical "human sacrifice channel."
The Obama administration asked the court to reinstate a 10-year-old law federal law that bans the production and sale of videos that show torture, mutilation and death of animals. The primary focus of the law was to ban so-called "crush videos," which appeal to a specific sexual fetish by showing such abuse of small animals.
But an appeals court struck down the law and invalidated the only conviction prosecutors have made under the law, that of Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Va., who was sentenced to three years in prison for videos he made about pit bull fights.
Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal told the court that the law was "narrowly targeted" and contained exceptions for depictions that had "serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value."
But he immediately ran into trouble with the justices, who said the law put the government in the position of making those subjective decisions, and ran afoul of First Amendment protections of free speech.
Justice Stephen Breyer indicated Congress should take another crack at writing a law that prohibits the "frightful things" it was targeting instead of forcing the courts into the "work of interpreting these very vague words."
The law has split animal rights activists and free speech advocates.
