Erin teaches undergraduate and graduate classes in Political Science, Public Policy, and Public Administration and has a PhD in Political Science.
In 2007, NFL player Michael Vick's property was raided by federal agents. On it, they discovered 54 living dogs, many starving, as well as the bodies of other deceased dogs. Most convincingly, the agents found a blood-soaked arena for dog-fighting, as well as the cages, restraints, and tools for operating a dog-fighting ring. The degree of cruelty and violence was shocking, even to those accustomed to intervening in animal abuse cases.
Vick was convicted of operating a dog-fighting ring and related gambling charges. Dog-fighting is a gambling enterprise where dogs are bred for aggression, abused into a crazed frenzy, and then pitted against one another in rings until one animal kills the other, with betting on the outcome of the fights. It is illegal in the United States and many other countries.
In United States v. Stevens, from 2010, the Supreme Court takes up the related issues of creating images or videos of cruelty to animals. Do you think that a public dog-fight ''depicts'' cruelty to animals for other people's entertainment? And if so, should it be protected as a freedom of expression?
In 2010, the United States Congress changed part of the federal criminal code, 18 U. S. C. §48, making it illegal to produce or profit from materials that depict cruelty to animals. The law specifies that these materials show a ''living animal'' being tortured, possibly to death, often in so-called ''crush videos'' where an animal is hurt or killed in a pornographic context (559 U.S. 3, 2010).
In the case of United States v. Stevens, the Court was asked to consider whether this law applied to dog-fighting as well. Robert J. Stevens operated a website where you could purchase videos of dog-fights and dog-attacks. Stevens was convicted under this law, because he was profiting from the sale of images of animal cruelty. He appealed his conviction, on the grounds that it violated his First Amendment freedom of expression, better known as the freedom of speech.
Does 18 U. S. C. §48, a law about depicting animal cruelty, violate the First Amendment?
The Supreme Court takes up cases when they present an interesting question about how to interpret our Constitution. Do you think that Stevens has a right to express himself, through the sale of videos depicting animal cruelty?
In a nearly unanimous, 8-1 decision, the Court decided that this law does violate the First Amendment. Stevens has the right to express himself, even in ways that society may not like, because this law is not constitutional. They argued that it is too broad, which makes it difficult to apply the law to examples. When a law is too broad, then it is not useful; and when a criminal law is too broad, people can be convicted to fines or even jail time for crimes that were not intended to be included by the original authors of the law. So, Stevens's conviction was overturned.
Now, consider Vick's case again. Do you think dog-fighting is a depiction of cruelty to animals? Although it is occurring live, and so is not a video, you could argue that it is a form of depiction which is supposed to be entertaining. Should a new version of this law pass which includes dog-fighting explicitly? If it does, would it violate Vick's freedom of speech?
United States v. Stevens (2010), is a Supreme Court case where a federal act about depicting animal cruelty was used to convict Stevens of the sale of dog-fighting videos. The Supreme Court considered if the law was a violation of the freedom of speech. They decided that it was too broad and so the law was unconstitutional and Stevens' conviction was overturned.
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
Already a member? Log In
Back