Animal Cruelty

In the case of the United States v. Stevens, Robert J. Stevens was convicted of creating and distributing videotapes that depicted acts of animal cruelty. Two of the videos that he distributed were of dogfights involving pitbulls, while the other was of a vicious attack on domestic pig in hopes of training that particular dog to kill wild hogs while hunting. In the period of time that Stevens was selling and distributing these videos (2 years) he made roughly $20,000.

Animal cruelty and any type of harm to animals is considered illegal in all 50 states, however, does the same apply for the depiction of animal cruelty? According to past laws and events, this is considered legal due to the fact that it was never made a law before. The act itself may be illegal, but the depiction of that illegal act (or any other illegal act) is actually considered legal. The only exception in past history of a depiction of an illegal act being criminalized would be child pornography. Under New York v. Ferber, “producing or distributing speech which depicts an actual or stimulated sexual performance or conduct by minors under 16” is prohibited—which is the only event in which a restriction like this has be passed. In the court’s opinion, “distribution of visual depictions of children engaged in sexual activity is intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children. The images serve as a permanent reminder of the abuse, and it is necessary for the government to regulate the channels of distributing such images if it is to be able to eliminate the production of child pornography”.

Though child pornography has been the only case of when depiction of illegal acts is considered illegal, Robert J. Stevens was convicted of a crime for distributing videos depicting cruelty towards animals in United States v. Stevens. The jury decided that he is not guilty of animal cruelty itself, but rather the distribution of the material. Stevens’ attorney, Patricia Millett argued that this particular conviction is an infringement against Freedom of Expression since it is limiting Stevens’ right to free speech. When looking at the Court’s opinion on the prohibition of child pornography, their reasoning lies within the damage that can potentially be done to the child’s development and the reminder of the past abuse, all caught on film. On the other hand, if this same argument were used in the case of the United States v. Stevens, it wouldn’t apply since the videos would have no effect on the animals and would not harm the psyche of the animals when shown these films. As Judge D. Brooks Smith stated, “while animals are sentient creatures worthy of human kindness and human care, one cannot seriously contend that the animals suffer continuing harms by having their images out in the marketplace”. While I do believe that animals deserve to be taken care of and not harmed by humans, I also agree with the judge’s statement that the videos will not cause continual harm to the animals, in nearly the same way it would for children. This puts me in a tough position because while I find animal cruelty quite offensive, at the same time I don’t feel that an infringement on our free speech is the best course of action—since this could undoubtedly open the gateway for more restrictions on freedom of expression. The question at hand, now, would be whether or not our freedom of speech is worth the potential incitement of harm, which may follow, towards animals.

After considering both perspectives of United States v. Stevens, I would apply Zechariah Chafee’s philosophy of “worthless versus worthwhile” speech. The type of speech or expression involving the torture of and cruelty towards innocent animals should not be protected since it does not, in any way, help advance society as a whole nor does it contribute any scientific value for the good of others.

In addition to Chafee, another philosopher that I feel would apply to the case of United States v Stevens would be John Stuart Mill in regards to his harm principle and his offense principle. Mill’s harm principle states that, “each individual has the right to act as he wants, so long as these actions do not harm others”. By pertaining Mills’ principle to the harm done to animals in Stevens’ films that involved instances of dogfighting and the attacks done to the living farm pig, Stevens would be found guilty under this jurisdiction. In relation to the harm principle, Mills’ offense principle would also apply in Stevens’ case. The issue of animal cruelty is very pertinent to society and obviously offends many. The action of harming animals does not have any moral or legal grounds and ultimately has the potential to cause harm on the general public, considering animals are supposed to live in harmony with humans in our society.

I feel that, in this case involving the United States v. Stevens and other cases involving animal cruelty such as crush videos, strict scrutiny would be most appropriate. Since no laws were technically made in regards to videos depicting animal cruelty, it seems unfair to simply convict someone because their actions is not morally in tact with the morals of society. However, after reviewing the case more in depth (under strict scrutiny) I do believe that the decision in United States v. Stevens should be upheld. I believe that there is enough evidence of damage that can be done to animals as well as society by allowing the production and distribution of these videos. The depiction of violence towards animals should be criminalized because I believe it has the potential to cause harm and incite immediate harm towards animals. Though the depictions of animal cruelty have never been criminalized before, the notion of establishing additional limitations to the First Amendment is not new. For example, under Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Fighting Words Doctrine was established. I believe that with the establishment of a law against the depiction of animal cruelty, society will benefit from the lack of “worthless speech” while animals will benefit from protection from further harm done unto them.