Supreme Court upholds right to dogfight videos

The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down a law that would ban videos of animal cruelty.

Read the article by Adam Liptak in the New York Times here.

The 8-1 decision ruled against a federal law making it a crime to create or sell videos of dogfights and animal cruelty.

The decision left open the possibility that Congress could enact a narrower law that would pass constitutional muster. But the existing law, Chief Justice [John G.] Roberts [Jr.] wrote, covered too much speech protected by the First Amendment.

The ruling stemmed from the prosecution of Robert J. Stevens, who billed himself as a pit bull authority. Stevens, who did not participate in the dogfights, compiled and sold videos showing them.

The Times said he got a 37-month sentence.

The government argued that depictions showing harm to animals were of such minimal social worth that they should receive no First Amendment protection at all. Chief Justice Roberts roundly rejected that assertion. “The First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter or its content,” he wrote.

The chief justice acknowledged that some kinds of speech — including obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement and speech integral to criminal conduct — have historically been granted no constitutional protection. But he said the Supreme Court had no “freewheeling authority to declare new categories of speech outside the scope of the First Amendment.”

Justice Samuel Alito Jr., who usually rules with Roberts, was the sole dissenter, saying "the majority's analysis was built on 'fanciful hypotheticals' and would serve to protect 'depraved entertainment.' "

I agree with Alito — wow, never thought I'd be writing that. Allowing videos of this illegal activity, in my opinion, only feeds the interests of the likes of Michael Vick. It serves no purpose in society.

Here's hoping Congress will re-examine the struck-down legislation and narrow its scope to end this vile practice.