In the case of US v. Stevens which was decided this week by the Supreme Court, a federal statute banning the making or sale of animal cruelty videos was declared unconstitutional. The statute at issue was intended to criminalize “crush videos” (which I won’t describe here but depict horrendous animal cruelty). While there are some exceptions to the right of free speech – most notably the one for obscenity – the Court indicated that animal cruelty should not be an additional exception. In other words, the statute attempted to criminalize speech which is protected under the First Amendment.
Despite the free speech analysis in the decision, I think the bigger issue is government encroachment on individual’s rights through the passage of federal criminal laws. Under the Bill of Rights, the federal government does not have police power; it was reserved to the states. Thus, the federal government does not have Constitutional authority to make and enforce criminal laws against its own citizens (except in a few very limited circumstances – such as regarding the military). While the result is right in US v. Stevens; it is for 10th Amendment reasons as opposed to 1st Amendment reasons. I do believe that videos depicting animal cruelty are obscene and the making and distribution thereof should be criminalized, but this should be done at the state level.
This 10th Amendment issue is going to come up more and more frequently now that people are starting to question the extent of federal legislation in this country. I was hoping this opinion would have given us a clue as to how this Court will rule when a 10th Amendment argument is made to it. I imagine it will come up with respect to the federal marijuana laws and the Health Care Reform Bill. I for one will be looking at the wording of future Supreme Court decisions to see if I can determine how they will resolve this issue.
In the eyes of the law 
I think that there indeed will be an extreme opinion in the future with the United States population with regards to the federal government encroaching upon state’s issues. It will be interesting to see how the marijuana topic will be handled with this concept, as well as the New Health Care Bill. If this isn’t handled sometime in the near future, the federal government will have enough power to override even the population’s opinions. They are on their way to controlling the everyday lives of everyone. It’s quite disheartening.
It sometimes sounds as if federal law is not as strong or supreme as it really is. It may be the level that officially establishes laws nationwide but local enforcement tends to be different. In fact, state laws impose an “interpretation” of the federal law and then it is really enforced as they wish locally. The federal government needs to prevent these “contradictions” of law. However, some laws don’t always apply to everyone and therefore states are given the ability to choose or modify what is best.
I agree with you about what they should do with the animal cruelty videos. They are obviously something that should not be made, but it is something that should be looked at by the states.
I think this is a growing and problematic 10th amendment issue. I think the Supreme Court was weary of establishing a 10th amendment precedent that would make many of the federal criminal laws already present unconstitutional. One of the many reasons why the federal government has accumulated the amount of power they have is because most citizens are unaware that the constitution prohibits them from making certain laws. It is important to uphold the 10th amendment in this case because criminal justice is better served when it is implemented on a state and local basis.
I definitely agree with the making and distribution of animal cruelty videos being criminalized under the state level. If there is constant federal takeover, as citizens, we will start to lose our freedom; they will soon forget the meaning of “we the people.” When dealing with the government on a federal level, as individuals, we do not have specific rights as to challenging them. If we focus on incorporating the 10th Amendment, the people have more power and more of a say as to what their freedoms should be. Jefferson said it best when he said, “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
There are a few issues in presented in this blog entry.
First, the issue of the federal courts imposing police power on the states and how this law relates to freedom of speech, and second, what constitutes animal cruelty and how it should be handled.
The solution for former issue seems simple. Supreme Court should not create laws that impose the rights of states (i.e.. public welfare, health, and safety). Period. If the Court wants to dictate all laws all laws of the nation, then the 10th Amendment needs to nullified, but until then the Court needs to leave states rights alone. As far as freedom of speech is concerned in the blog, I am having a hard time seeing how 1. there is a market for animal cruelty videos, 2. seeing how watching/distributing/creating these videos relates to freedom of speech, and 3. why anyone would admit to enjoy watching such videos and fight for such as if it were a paramount right. I understand why people would be upset for the government censoring what is suitable viewing material, but I just cant see how someone could argue for wanting to watch a “puppy slaughter video.”
There are a few instances when animal snuff has been used with good intention. One of which is by the well known activist group PETA. At any given time PETA has a video on their home page (www.peta2.com) that will show animals getting brutally slaughtered. Dogs, cats, cows polar bears, cobras, you name it and PETA has a video of it getting clubbed, butchered, or skinned alive. In their most recent video Joaquin Phoenix narrates about the horrors snakes, iguanas, and crocodiles go through when they are hunted by poachers to be sold and made into handbags, shoes, and other commodities. Oh yeah, and the actual clip of the video is of theses creatures being captured, skinned alive, and bled dry. Why does PETA do this? Simple. It works as effective propaganda to make people feel bad about wearing leather, eating meat, or buying things with ivory, etc. all in hopes that people will change their way of life, and become an animal activist. Another example of animal brutality in the mainstream would be when an “artist” chained a dog up in a museum, just to have him starve to death in an exhibit (Don’t believe it, go here “http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/features/mutts/blog/2008/04/post_61.html). The museum that hosted the exhibit was in Costa Rica, not America, but that doesn’t make the excuse the artist for killing an animal for entertainment purposes.
I am curious to see how PETA will respond to this new law, and see how they will get people to feel bad animal treatment in the future.
It concerns me that the animal cruelty videos have become so popular that the supreme court must decide on their criminilzation. I feel that this right should be left up to the states, because, while the videos may be horrific, I do not consider them a threat to our society. It must also be considered that PETA often uses very offensive animal cruelty videos in order to raise awareness, under the new law is that illegal as well? I am a vegetarian, but I dont see the importance of the animal cruelty videos.
The constitution is a living, breathing document, and thus subject to reinterpretation. The 14th amendment asserts that Americans are citizens firstly of the United States, and secondly of the state in which they reside. Therefore, the federal government should be the primary arbiter of law, not the states. People are more likely to be oppressed by their state or local governments than by the federal government. During the civil rights era, the federal government stepped in when Southern States discriminated against African Americans. More recently, Arizona has proven willing to ignore the civil rights of its Hispanic population, under the guise of capturing illegal immigrants. Hopefully, Washington will take action.
People are attracted to the idea of states’ rights because it seems to diffuse power. The downside is that it leaves citizens at the mercy of local prejudices. States’ right is an anachronism which leads to reactionary policies. In addition, there are certain goals for which we should be willing to waive concerns about power altogether, such as full employment, racial justice, or peace. Doesn’t it seem that ending animal cruelty would also qualify as one of these fundamental goals?