of Youth
  Copyright   Internet   Media
  Sex and   Censorship     Violence in   the Media

  About Us
  Contact Us
  Court and Agency Briefs
  Fact Sheets
  Policy Reports

Search FEPP


Justices Strike Down Law Criminalizing Photos of Cruelty to Animals

(April 20, 2010) – In a rare display of near-unanimity, the justices of the Supreme Court today struck down a federal law that attempted to create a broad new exception to the First Amendment for depictions of “animal cruelty.”

The law in question defines “depiction of animal cruelty” as

any visual or auditory depiction, including any photograph, motion-picture film, video recording, electronic image, or sound recording of conduct in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed, if such conduct is illegal under Federal law or the law of the State in which the creation, sale, or possession takes place, regardless of whether the maiming, mutilation, torture, wounding, or killing took place in the State.

The law applies only to depictions that are intended to be placed "in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain,” and has an exemption for “any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.”1

Crush videos, the ostensible target of the law, are evidently designed to appeal to a relatively small group of people who have a bizarre sexual interest in seeing women in dominatrix apparel stomping on small animals and torturing them to death. Obviously, the definition of “animal cruelty” in the law goes well beyond crush videos.

Chief Justice Roberts's opinion for the Court today rejected the government's argument that "whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.” He explained: "As a free-floating test for First Amendment coverage, that sentence is startling and dangerous. The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs."2

The defendant in the case before the Supreme Court, Robert Stevens, was criminally convicted for possessing two videos showing dogfights and one showing the training of pit bulls to catch and subdue wild boars. The dogfights were legal where they were filmed. The videos contain narration and commentary.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed Stevens’s conviction. The court said it had been 25 years since the Supreme Court created a new exception to the protection of the First Amendment (in that instance, for child pornography). The judges saw no compelling reason to create another exception for depictions of animal cruelty, especially since acts of animal cruelty are already illegal in all 50 states. The court noted that the law potentially bans not only documentaries about dogfighting, cockfighting, and bullfighting, but even depictions of fishing and hunting if done off-season or without the proper permit.3

The Court of Appeals added that the exemption in the law for works with “serious value” creates more problems than it solves. Outside the field of obscenity law (which defines punishable obscenity as prurient, patently offensive sexual material that lacks “serious value”), the First Amendment protects expression regardless of whether a prosecutor, judge, or jury thinks it has "serious value."

The government’s petition to the Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals decision raised at least two questions with ominous implications for free speech. One involved Congress’s stated justification for the law: that depictions of cruelty to animals should be suppressed because they will desensitize people and lead them to be cruel to humans as well. This is an argument with very few limits.

For example, those who want to ban films and other forms of expression that contain graphic violence frequently argue that viewers will be desensitized, or will imitate the violence shown on the screen. But the First Amendment rejects the notion that speech should be suppressed because it might give people bad ideas. As as a U.S. appeals court judge explained in a decision striking down an l ordinance that criminalized pornography that seemed to advocate the subordination of women: “any other answer leaves the government in control of all of the institutions of culture, the great censor and director of which thoughts are good for us.”4

The government also argued that any danger of censorship would be averted by the law’s exemption for material with serious value. But apart from the “I know it when we see it” context of obscenity law, the question whether a work has "serious value" is one that the First Amendment puts beyond the power of local authorities to decide. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this basic principle in today's ruling.

According to the public defender representing Stevens, there were only three prosecutions under the animal-cruelty-depiction law since its passage in 1999. None have been for crush videos.5

Many friend-of-the-court briefs were filed on both sides of this case. Some animal-rights groups, arguably short-sightedly, sided with the government and urged the Court to carve out an exception to the First Amendment for depictions of animal cruelty. Free-expression, arts, and media organizations submitted briefs outlining the perils of such a course.6

The decision today was no surprise. According to The New York Times's Adam Liptak, reporting on the Supreme Court argument last year, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked the lawyers whether videos of cockfighting would be illegal under the "animal cruelty" law; Justice John Paul Stevens asked, “what about hunting with a bow and arrow out of season?”; Justice Stephen Breyer asked about “stuffing geese for pâté de foie gras”; and Justice Antonin Scalia wondered: “What if I am an aficionado of bullfights, and I think, contrary to the animal cruelty people, they ennoble both beast and man?”7 Only Justice Samuel Alito dissented from today's 8-1 ruling.

For a copy of the government's brief on the merits to the Supreme Court, click here. For a copy of Stevens's brief, click here.


1. 18 U.S.Code §48.

2. United States v. Stevens, S.Ct. No. 08-769 (April 20, 2010), p. 7. The decision is available at,

3. U.S. v. Stevens, No. 05-2497 (3rd Cir. July 18, 2008), available at

4. American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323, 330 (7th Cir. 1985).

5. Brief in Opposition to Petition for Certiorari in U.S. v. Stevens, p. 12, available at

6. All of the briefs can be found at

7. Adam Liptak, "Court Hears Free-Speech Case on Dogfight Videos," New York Times, Oct. 7, 2009.


The Free Expression Policy Project began in 2000 to provide empirical research and policy development on tough censorship issues and seek free speech-friendly solutions to the concerns that drive censorship campaigns. In 2004-2007, it was part of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. The FEPP website is now hosted by the National Coalition Against Censorship. Past funders have included the Robert Sterling Clark Foundation, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the Open Society Institute, and the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts.

All material on this site is covered by a Creative Commons "Attribution - No Derivs - NonCommercial" license. (See You may copy it in its entirely as long as you credit the Free Expression Policy Project and provide a link to the Project's Web site. You may not edit or revise it, or copy portions, without permission (except, of course, for fair use). Please let us know if you reprint!