Dallas Dog Training, Houston Dog Training, Atlanta Dog Training News and Events

Welcome, Search_Engine!

Your Store is:
,
Directions to this location

Number:

Hours: 9am-8pm Mon-Thurs
9am-5pm Fri-Sun

Have a question for Man's Best Friend? Just ask Manny!

Your Email Address:

Type your question here:

News & Events

Justices talk dog-fighting videos, 'Human Sacrifice Channel'
10-06-2009

A Supreme Court argument about 1st Amendment rights and animal cruelty conjures the specter of programs about people being killed.

Reporting from Washington - Could the government outlaw a future "Human Sacrifice Channel" on cable TV?

That question became the focus of a Supreme Court argument today on the reach of the 1st Amendment and whether Congress can outlaw videos showing dogs fighting or other small animals being tortured and killed.

Last year, a federal appeals court, citing freedom of speech, struck down a law against selling videos with scenes of animal cruelty. Today, most of the justices sounded unwilling to revive that law, fearing it may be used against depictions of bullfighting or illegal hunting.

Justice Antonin Scalia, an avid hunter, insisted the 1st Amendment did not allow the government to limit speech and expression, unless it involved sex or obscenity.

"It's not up to the government to tell us what are our worst instincts," said Scalia. He repeatedly cited German dictator Adolf Hitler and his policies of extermination. Scalia asked, "Can you keep him off the screen" just because his deeds were vile?

But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. garnered the attention of his colleagues with a series of questions on whether videos portraying humans being killed would be protected as free speech.

Alito said there may well be a "pay-per-view" market for programs made outside the United States, so there would be no criminal jurisdiction here, that showed real people being killed. He called it the "Human Sacrifice Channel" and wondered aloud whether Congress could outlaw the showing of such programs in this country.

What about "snuff films," asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The lawyer defending a Virginia man convicted of selling dog-fighting videos struggled to answer the question. She said the 1st Amendment usually protects speech and expression, even if the underlying conduct is ugly or illegal. She said the government should work to stop the illegal acts, rather than make it illegal to show the acts.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. sounded surprised. "You think it is unconstitutional for Congress to forbid the 'Human Sacrifice Channel'?" he said.

But for much of the hour, the government's lawyer, Neal Katyal, struggled to persuade the justices that the law targeted only "crush videos," or dog-fighting videos. Congress passed the law 10 years ago with the intention of drying up the underground market for videos that showed tiny animals being crushed by women in high heels.

More recently, the law has been used to prosecute people who sell dog-fighting videos. Robert Stevens, the Virginia man, was convicted for selling three videos that contained scenes of pit bulls fighting in Japan, where this is legal.

By the argument's end, the justices seemed to be weighing two possibilities. One was to narrow the reach of the law to focus only on the "crush videos." The other was to strike down the law entirely because it infringed too much on the 1st Amendment.

A ruling in the case, U.S. vs. Stevens, is not likely for several months.

By David G. Savage

DFW's Ultimate Best 2010 - Best Pet Training