Switched has a new home! Huffpost Tech.

Click here to visit the new home of Switched!

Hot on HuffPost Tech:

See More Stories
AOL Tech

Supreme Court Shouts Down Legal Definition of Animal Cruelty Videos, Images

by Amar Toor on April 21, 2010 at 02:50 PM

People will always argue about what should and shouldn't be protected under free speech, but most people who aren't named Michael Vick would agree that animal cruelty falls outside of its borders. Yesterday, however, the Supreme Court decided that current law governing the depiction of animal cruelty actually goes too far in prosecuting those who broadcast video or images of animal cruelty.

In an 8-to-1 opinion, the court overturned the criminal conviction of Robert Stevens, a filmmaker who used to sell books, videos and equipment to help people raise pit bulls online. Originally, Stevens had been prosecuted in accordance with a 1999 federal law that outlawed the depiction of animal cruelty, whether in video or photograph. As CNET explains, the law was originally geared toward banning the online propagation of "crush videos," which often fetishize the killing of small animals. In yesterday's decision, though, the Court's majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, deemed the law "substantially overbroad, and therefore invalid under the First Amendment."

The Supreme Court found that the original language of the law was broad enough to encompass a lot of media that shouldn't necessarily be classed with crush videos. The original bill that Bill Clinton signed in 1999 didn't, for example, exempt hunting videos, nor did it demand that plaintiffs provide evidence of actual cruelty. Hunting videos or magazines, in which animals are intentionally wounded or killed, would've been fair game for prosecution. Clinton assured in a signing statement that the law would only be used to target "wanton cruelty to animals designed to appeal to a prurient interest in sex," but that clearly was not the case for Stevens, who used to sell obedience training videos to pet owners. Although his videos could've been useful for people involved in dog fighting, he does not condone animal cruelty, nor has he been accused of orchestrating dog fights.

The Court did say, however, that it remained open to new, more pointed legislation that would specifically target crush videos, and we certainly hope that Congress takes action. As much as we love free speech, we also love animals, and realize that not all expression should be free. We wouldn't exactly call hunting "not cruel," but we do know that there's a difference between legally gunning down a duck and killing a cat with your stiletto on YouTube. Hopefully, Congress can find a way to put that difference into law. [From: CNET]

Tags: AnimalCruelty, animals, government, law, onlinevideo, SupremeCourt, SupremeCourtRuling, top, youtube

HuffPost AOL Social News Most Popular