Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Animal Cruelty Video Free Speech Case

The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments on Oct. 6, 2009, in *United States v. Stevens*, a case testing whether a federal law criminalizing the sale of videos depicting animal cruelty violates the First Amendment. According to NPR, several justices signaled during argument that the statute may reach protected speech, raising the prospect that the law could be struck down ^[1]. The central question before the Court was whether 18 U.S.C. § 48, which criminalizes the creation for sale of depictions of animal cruelty, is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment ^[2].

The defendant, Robert J. Stevens, presented himself as an authority on pit bulls and compiled and sold videotapes showing dogfights. Though he did not participate in the dogfights, he received a 37-month sentence under a 1999 federal law that banned trafficking in "depictions of animal cruelty" ^[2]. Stevens operated a business that advertised and sold pit bull-related videos and merchandise. Law enforcement officials purchased three videotapes from him, the first two showing pit bulls in dogfights and the third showing trained pit bulls attacking wild boar. In April 2003, officers searched Stevens' residence and found several copies of the videos. In March 2004, a grand jury sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania indicted Stevens for violating § 48 ^[2].

Congress enacted the law in 1999, primarily to target "crush videos," which depicted people crushing small animals to gratify a sexual fetish. The statute excluded from prosecution any depiction that has "serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value" ^[2]. The district court denied Stevens' motion to dismiss, and a jury convicted him. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit then vacated the conviction and declared § 48 facially unconstitutional as a content-based regulation of protected speech ^[3]. The government asked the Supreme Court to overturn the appellate ruling, and the Court agreed to review the case on April 20, 2009 ^[2].

More than a dozen media organizations filed an amicus brief in support of Stevens, including The New York Times, National Public Radio, the American Society of News Editors, and the Society of Professional Journalists, among others ^[2]. The breadth of that coalition reflected a shared concern among press advocates that the statute's reach extended well beyond dogfighting videos. The government did not extend its defense to other depictions, such as hunting magazines and videos, that are presumptively protected by the First Amendment but remain subject to § 48, and it did not seriously contest that those presumptively impermissible applications far outnumber permissible ones ^[3].

The case carries significant implications for the scope of congressional authority to create new categories of unprotected speech. How the Court decides the matter will reflect its view on the breadth of the First Amendment right to speech and affect the power of Congress to identify new areas of unprotected expression ^[2]. A decision is expected before the close of the Court's October 2009 term.

References

[1] NPR. (2009, October 6). High Court Weighs Arguments In Dogfighting Case. https://www.npr.org/2009/10/06/113538567/high-court-weighs-arguments-in-dogfighting-case

[2] Wikipedia. (2026, April 27). United States v. Stevens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stevens

[3] Cornell Law School / Legal Information Institute. (2010, April 20). United States v. Stevens. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-769.ZS.html