U.S. v. Stevens Press Release: Media Coalition Urges Supreme Court to Reject Broad Speech Ban Arising from Dogfighting Video Case

Obama Administration is Seeking Power to Censor Unpopular Speech, Creating a New Exception to the First Amendment for the First Time in 25 Years

 

 

CONTACT: Kai-Ming Cha, (212) 587-4025, x 12

kai-ming@mediacoalition.org                                                   FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Emily Whitfield, (917) 686-4542                                              July 27, 2009

emily@emilywhitfield.org

     

WASHINGTON, DC – Media Coalition, a trade association that defends the First Amendment rights of mainstream media, today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in U.S. v. Stevens urging the Supreme Court to rule that a law banning depictions of animal cruelty is unconstitutional and unworkable.

According to Media Coalition, the Obama administration’s interpretation of the law creates a new and unique exception to the First Amendment – for the first time in 25 years – and gives federal officials substantial power to decide whether certain words and images are worthy of First Amendment protection. 

 “This case marks the tip of a very large iceberg that threatens serious and lasting damage to the First Amendment,” said David Horowitz, Executive Director of Media Coalition.  “The First Amendment is most necessary when unpopular speech is at issue. If the government is allowed to decide whether your speech has low value, what’s next on the list of materials it can ban?”

Media Coalition members and other organizations that signed onto its brief include American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, Association of American Publishers, Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, International Documentary Association, National Association of Theater Owners, and PEN American Center (full list below). In addition to filing its brief, Media Coalition coordinated the submission of amicus briefs from a broad range of groups with disparate interests. Among those expected to file are ACLU, Cato Institute, National Coalition Against Censorship, National Public Radio, National Rifle Association, Professional Outdoor Media Association, Safari Club International, The New York Times, and many others. 

At issue in U.S. v. Stevens, No. 08-769, is a 1999 federal law that makes it a crime to create, sell or possess videos and other depictions of cruelty to animals. The statute defines depictions of animal cruelty as “any visual or auditory depiction, including any photograph, motion-picture film, video recording, electronic image, or sound recording of conduct in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed, if such conduct is illegal under Federal law or the law of the State.”  Violators are subject to up to five years in prison for each count as well as unspecified fines.

The case arose when Virginia resident and published author Robert J. Stevens, 68, was sentenced to 37 months in prison in 2004 by a federal court in Pennsylvania for selling videos that showed pit bulls fighting and training to hunt wild boar. Stevens, the author of a book praising pit bulls as pets and hunting dogs, is not accused of organizing dogfighting – in fact, he has publicly opposed the practice. Much of the footage on his videos is more than 30 years old or comes from foreign sources where dogfighting is legal.

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Stevens’ conviction in 2008, ruling that the law was unconstitutional. In doing so, the appeals court pointed out that the law criminalizes speech that is protected by the First Amendment. “If a person hunts or fishes out of season, films the activity, and sells it to an out-of-state party, it appears that the statute has been violated,” the court said.

The Media Coalition amicus brief urges the Justices to affirm that ruling, noting that the government is asking the court “to declare that images of violence can be criminalized as a means of combating both the acts depicted and the purported psychological effect of the images on viewers.”

“If the Court were to agree that speech about violence can be banned in order to discourage violence – in this case, cruelty to animals – it would imperil not just a wide range of speech that engages with the violent world in which we live but also speech concerning other conduct that may be viewed as undesirable and thus potentially subject to restriction,” the brief said.

In its brief, the Obama administration talks about the law in the context of gruesome dogfighting videos and sexual fetish “crush videos,” in which women step on small animals. But, as the government fails to acknowledge, the law was written much more broadly and could cover everything from real cockfighting scenes in the 2009 film Fast and Furious to documentaries about animal welfare such as Death on a Factory Farm, that show explicit images of harm to animals. (See below for more examples.)

“Animal cruelty is wrong and should be vigorously prosecuted, but sending people to prison for making videos is not the answer,” Horowitz said. “Law enforcement dollars are better spent on breaking up dogfighting rings, not putting documentary filmmakers and hunting photographers in prison and weakening our First Amendment rights.” 

 

Horowitz noted that football player Michael Vick recently completed a prison term of less than two years for running a dogfighting ring, while Robert Stevens, who has never been involved in dogfighting, is facing 37 months behind bars, to be followed by three years of supervised release.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in U.S. v. Stevens on October 6.

The Media Coalition brief was written by Jonathan Bloom of Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, working with Media Coalition General Counsel Michael Bamberger of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal.  The brief is available online at http://www.mediacoalition.org/U.S.-v.-Stevens. A wiki about the case, including links to all legal papers and briefs, is online at http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=United_States_v._Stevens

The 15 groups signing on to the Media Coalition brief are: The Association of American Publishers, Inc., The American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, The Association of American University Presses, The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, The Entertainment Consumers Association, The Entertainment Merchants Association, Film Independent, The Freedom to Read Foundation, Independent Book Publishers Association, Independent Film & Television Alliance, Independent Filmmaker Project, International Documentary Association, The National Association of Recording Merchandisers, The National Association of Theatre Owners, Inc., and PEN American Center.

Additional examples of currently available commercial material that could result in prosecution because the activities shown are illegal in some states include:   

 

 

 

Media Coalition, Inc., founded in 1973, is an association that defends the First Amendment right to produce and sell books, movies, magazines, recordings, DVDs, videotapes, and video games, and defends the American public's First Amendment right to have access to the broadest possible range of opinion and entertainment. 

###

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

updated 7/27/09