Animal Cruelty and Freedom of Speech

Randall Lockwood, Abigail Perdue

Description

A collaboration between an attorney and an animal protection advocate, this work utilizes the extremely controversial and high-profile "crush video" case, US v. Stevens, to explore how American society attempts to balance the protection of free speech and the prevention of animal cruelty. Starting from the detailed case study of a single prominent ruling, the authors provide a masterful survey of important issues facing society in the area of animal welfare. The Stevens case included various "hot topic" elements connected to the role of government as arbiter of public morality, including judicial attitudes to sexual deviance and dogfighting. Because it is one of only two animal rights cases that the US Supreme Court has handled, and the only case discussing the competing interests of free speech and animal cruelty, it will be an important topic for discussion in constitutional and animal law courses for decades to come. The Stevens case arose from the first conviction under 18 USC § 48 (Section 48), a federal law enacted in 1999, which criminalized the creation, sale, and/or possession of certain depictions of animal cruelty. The US Congress intended Section 48 to end the creation and interstate trafficking of depictions of animal cruelty in which animals are abused or even killed for entertainment's sake. Proponents of Section 48 predicted that countless benefits to both humans and animals would flow from its enforcement. Opponents of the law argued that it was too far-reaching and would stifle protected speech. Critics of Section 48 appeared to have prevailed when the US Supreme Court struck the law down as unconstitutionally overbroad. Although a law tailored to address the Supreme Court's concerns was quickly enacted, the free speech/animal cruelty controversy is far from over.
Foreword

Acknowledgments

Introduction

Chapter 1: Cruelty Unspoken: Law and Policy Regarding Animals and Sexual Deviance

Chapter 2: Dogfighting in America: A Historical and Sociolegal Perspective

Chapter 3: Showcasing Animal Abuse: Regulating Media Depictions of Animal Cruelty

Chapter 4: Freedom of Religion and Animal Sacrifice: Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah

Chapter 5: Freedom of Speech and Animal Protection: United States v. Stevens

Chapter 6: Clash of the Titans: Friends of the Court Battle over Section

Chapter 7: Oral Argument: The Last Stand

Chapter 8: The Supreme Court Speaks

Chapter 9: Analyzing the Decision

Chapter 10: The Aftermath of United States v. Stevens

Afterword: Implications for the Future

Bibliography

Index

Sujets

• Droit privé
• Droit privé
• Droit privé
• Droit privé
• Criminal Law
• Droit et juridique
• Law
• Droit pénal
• droit pénal
• Droit pénal
• Droit pénal
• Droit pénal

Informations

• Publié par: Purdue University Press
• Date de parution: 15 mai 2014
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781612493220
• Langue: English

Extrait

ANIMAL CRUELTY AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH:
WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE

New Directions in the Human-Animal Bond
Alan M. Beck, Series Editor
ANIMAL CRUELTY AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH:
WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE
Abigail Perdue and Randall Lockwood
Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, Indiana
Copyright 2014 by Purdue University. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Perdue, Abigail, author.
Animal cruelty and freedom of speech : when worlds collide / Abigail Perdue, Randall Lockwood.
pages cm. -- (New directions in the human-animal bond)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-55753-633-4 (hardback) -- ISBN 978-1-61249-321-3 (epdf) -- ISBN 978-1-61249-322-0 (epub)
1. Animal welfare--Law and legislation--United States. 2. Animal welfare--Law and legislation--United States--Cases. 3. Animal rights--United States. 4. Animals--Law and legislation--United States. 5. Freedom of speech--United States. 6. Human-animal relationships--United States. I. Lockwood, Randall, 1948- author. II. Title.
KF3841.P47 2014
344.7304›9--dc23
2013039397
Notice to Readers
This publication was cite-checked in summer 2012. While all references to cases, statutes, and other legal materials were current at that time, the authors, editor, and publisher are not responsible for errors or omissions due to legal matters or events taking place after that date.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword
Acknowledgments
Introduction
Chapter 1
Cruelty Unspoken: Law and Policy Regarding Animals and Sexual Deviance
Chapter 2
Dogfighting in America: A Historical and Sociolegal Perspective
Chapter 3
Showcasing Animal Abuse: Regulating Media Depictions of Animal Cruelty
Chapter 4
Freedom of Religion and Animal Sacrifice: Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah
Chapter 5
Freedom of Speech and Animal Protection: United States v. Stevens
Chapter 6
Clash of the Titans: Friends of the Court Battle over Section 48
Chapter 7
Oral Argument: The Last Stand
Chapter 8
The Supreme Court Speaks
Chapter 9
Analyzing the Decision
Chapter 10
The Aftermath of United States v. Stevens
Afterword
Implications for the Future
Bibliography
Index
Foreword
Companion animals are very much part of our American self-image and personality; more than sixty percent of all households in the United States have a pet—more than forty percent have more than one. It is common to hear people refer sincerely to their pets as “members of the family.” We name our companion animals, like we name our children, in appreciation of their individuality, and have a well-developed veterinary infrastructure to address their health needs. This dedication to our animals very much informs a concern for their welfare and abhorrence of animal cruelty. Evidence that we have little acceptance of cruelty is that dogfighting, which is considered a particularly egregious form of cruelty, is outlawed in all fifty states, as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
But Americans also have a great dedication to their freedom of speech and of self-expression; indeed, the protection that guarantees those freedoms is part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. But what happens when our concern for animals and their welfare and our freedom of self-expression are in conflict?
Animal Cruelty and Freedom of Speech uses United States v. Stevens , a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States in 2009, to illustrate an issue that documented these two competing and compelling interests. Studying this case in detail allows us to understand the issues of animal cruelty while appreciating our constitutional freedoms. The case in point is one of only two animal rights cases ever handled by the Supreme Court of the United States and the only case discussing the competing interests of animal cruelty and free speech. It brought into question a federal law, 18 U.S.C. 48 (Section 48), criminalizing the creation, sale, or possession of the depiction of acts of animal cruelty. While many had hailed the law as something that would benefit both people and animals, others argued the law would threaten free expression. The Supreme Court found that the law did not address an exception to First Amendment rights and it was declared unconstitutional in April 2010. In response, President Barack Obama signed the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010 (Crush Act), the constitutionality of which is still under review.
This book details the history, scope, and purpose of the Section 48 and then explores the facts and legal precedent underlying United States v. Stevens . It analyzes the Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate the law and explains how an alternative outcome could have been reached. Finally, the authors examine the newly enacted Crush Act. As they observe, “Depictions of animal cruelty have been and will remain part of the media landscape whether they are used to advocate for animal protection or to satisfy the base motives of those who would exploit animals for utilitarian, prurient, or pathological purposes.”
This issue has social and educational importance. It will be taught and discussed both in constitutional and animal law courses around the country, as well in other social studies classes. Moreover, human-animal relationships and our natural concern for animal welfare is a topic of interest not only to animal law attorneys and law students, but also to professionals in many fields including law enforcement, animal control, and animal protection—indeed, to all that are concerned about animals and legal freedoms.
Animal Cruelty and Freedom of Speech , which uses an exemplar court case to explore a broader issue, is somewhat like Purdue University Press’ very popular book, Inside Animal Hoarding . This new book fits nicely in Purdue University Press books that address social policy issues related to animals.
As Americans, we love our pets as much as we love our freedom of expression. We must find ways to balance these values so people and animals can continue to share and benefit from each other.
Alan M. Beck
Center for the Human-Animal Bond
College of Veterinary Medicine
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana
Acknowledgments
I first met Dr. Lockwood in the spring of 2009 when I was asked to work on a unique pro bono project—helping to draft an amicus brief in United States v. Stevens in support of the Government on behalf of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It was during my work on that project that I first learned about the existence of crush videos and the tortuous lives of fighting dogs. A long-time animal lover, I was shocked to learn of these disturbing enterprises. Dr. Lockwood was incredibly helpful in drafting the brief. Eventually, after I entered academia, I published a law review article on the case. But there was still more to be said about the law, the decision, and the culture of cruelty giving rise to each. And so this book was born.
The creative birthing process was more strenuous and difficult than I could have imagined, but it was also incredibly rewarding. There are no words that can adequately express my sincere gratitude to all of the amazing individuals who supported me during the process.
My thanks go to Dr. Alan Beck, Charles Watkinson, and Jennifer Lynch at Purdue University Press, whose patience, guidance, and flexibility made this project possible. I also owe a major debt of gratitude to my colleagues at my former law firm, at my alma mater, Washington and Lee University, where I drafted the law review article that preceded the book, and at Wake Forest University School of Law for their invaluable insight and peer editing. I am particularly grateful to Professor Harold Lloyd whose thoughtful feedback and own insightful research on Stevens truly enriched the piece. I am also extremely appreciative of my wonderful research assistants through the years, including Lea Koh, Tee Hassold, Stephen White, Stephen Frost, Kelsey Meuret, Breonna Hammond, and Evan Leadem, who worked tirelessly to make sure that I crossed every t .
Most of all, I extend heartfelt thanks to my amazing family and friends, especially my parents, Janet and David Perdue, my mamaw and papaw, Mary and Hoover Asbury, my sister and brother-in-law, Rachel and Alexander Turner, my beloved nephews, Heath and Wyatt, my grandfather and grandmother, Herbert and Maxine Perdue, my aunt and uncle, Christine and Turner Smith, and our fur-covered “family” members—Mandy, Megan, Dozy, Hank, Harriet, Lambie, and Violet. They instilled in me a love and respect for all of God’s creatures.
Last but certainly not least, I would like to acknowledge the strength and support of my Heavenly Father without whom I would not have had the heart and stamina for this undertaking. As Jesus observed in Luke 12:6, “What is the price of five sparrows? A couple of pennies? Yet God does not forget a single one of them.” Because His eye is on the sparrow, so is mine. And like Him, I strive to show mercy, compassion, and love to all living creatures, humans and animals alike.
Dr. Lockwood wishes to thank Dr. Alan Beck for his support and persistence in advocating for the publication of this work as well as the ASPCA staff, particularly President Ed Sayres, Chief of Staff, General Counsel Melissa Norden, and Chief Counsel Stacy Wolf, for their commitment to responding to t