NOTE: Despite the fact that HSUS is the primary force behind the
passage of this law, Justice Roberts broaches whether it could be
applied to "cruelty" depictions used by animal rights activists for
political purposes.
--------------------------------

Reuters News Service
U.S. justices question animal cruelty video law
By James Vicini
Tue Oct 6, 2009
http://www.reuters.com/article/mediaNews/idUSN0642956520091006?sp=true

WASHINGTON, Oct 6 (Reuters) - A U.S. law that makes it a crime to sell
videos of animals being tortured or killed may be too broad as it
possibly covers documentary films and depictions of hunting or
bullfights, Supreme Court justices said on Tuesday.

A majority of the nine-member high court seemed sympathetic to the
argument that the 1999 animal cruelty law infringed on free-speech
protections guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution.

Congress adopted the law in an attempt to stop people from profiting
by the interstate sale of depictions of torture and killing of
animals. It mainly was aimed at videos in which women in high-heeled
shoes crush small animals as a type of sexual fetish.

Opponents of the law argued that its reach was too wide, making videos
of blood sports and even documentaries illegal.

Justice Antonin Scalia said the court needed to consider "the right of
people who like cockfighting, who like dogfighting and who like
bullfighting to present their side of the debate."

The case involved the conviction of a Virginia man, Robert Stevens,
who made and sold three videos of pit bulls fighting each other and
attacking hogs and wild boars.

His conviction in 2005 was the first in the country under the law.
Stevens was sentenced to 37 months in prison, but he has yet to start
his sentence while his case is on appeal.

Attorneys for Stevens said his sentence was 14 months longer than
professional football player Michael Vick's prison term for running a
dogfighting ring.

Laws in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, along with various
other federal laws, already ban animal cruelty.

Justice Stephen Breyer cited a long list of activities, including
bullfights, deer and fox hunting and the slaughter of animals, that
people might want to video. "They won't know whether they can make
this particular film or depiction," he said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said a documentary film on pit bulls contained
worse scenes than those in the videos made by Stevens.

Chief Justice John Roberts asked whether the law might apply to videos
with a political message, such as those by animal rights activists
depicting animal cruelty.

Attorney Patricia Millett, arguing for Stevens, said the ban on such
videos should be struck down as a form of government censorship.
"Congress has a job to write with a scalpel and not a buzzsaw in the
First Amendment area," she said.

Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal defended the law. He said videos
showing animal cruelty should be treated like child pornography, not
entitled to any constitutional protection.

Usually, videos and other depictions are protected as free speech,
even if they show abhorrent conduct. A ruling is expected early next
year. (Editing by Eric Beech)

Newsweek
Justice Scalia a Bullfighter? Supreme Court Explores Animal Cruelty
By Krista Gesaman
Tuesday, October 06, 2009 4:49 PM
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle...al-cruelty.aspx

In a showdown between animal-rights activists and First Amendment
experts, it appears the right to free speech might have an edge.
Earlier today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in U.S. v.
Stevens, the controversial case that will determine whether to revive
a 10-year-old law that makes it a crime to create, sell, or possess
depictions of animal cruelty for commercial gain. The law was intended
to prohibit the sale of disturbing sexual fetish videos, called “crush
videos,” which pictured women in bare feet or high heels crushing
small animals. But if struck down, it has the potential to also
prohibit many other types of expression.

Animal lovers lined up on the Supreme Court steps earlier today hours
before the hearing to champion the plight of their four-legged
friends—and just as many free-speech advocates showed up to oppose.
Among those in the crowd were contemporary artists, concerned that
modern paintings of fox hunting or dead animals would violate the law.
Others were worried their favorite animal-rescue shows or hunting
programs would soon be taken off the air.

But the arguments were just as passionate in favor of animal rights.
Members of the Humane Society were convinced the law was narrowly
tailored to prosecute only those engaged in acts of animal cruelty.
“The law works perfectly when it dries up the market for illegal
behavior,” Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of
the United States said in a press conference after the hearing. “There
is nothing more offensive and barbaric than crush videos.” Neal
Katyal, deputy solicitor general who argued on behalf of the United
States, agreed in his arguments, pointing out that in the late 1990s,
between 2,000 and 3,000 crush videos were sold, and the law was able
to almost completely halt sales.

Several justices asked pointed questions about the structure of the
law and its exceptions. “So when exactly does cockfighting or dog
fighting become illegal?” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked. The law
allows depictions of animal cruelty that have serious religious,
political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or
artistic value. But it’s difficult to distinguish what images fall
under these exceptions, and what images would cross the line.
Basically, it's a subjective test that fall into the lap of judges and
juries across the nation.

The court erupted with laughter when Justice Antonin Scalia posed a
playful hypothetical. “What if I’m an aficionado of bullfighting who
wants to promote his passion about the noble fight of man versus beast
by selling videos,” Scalia said. Under the current law, he may not
have the opportunity because it could be classified as a depiction of
animal cruelty. Katyal said that wouldn’t happen because when Congress
drafted the law it intended to exempt images of bullfighting that are
educational. But how and when is something deemed educational? “If I
dress up like a Roman to promote my videos, does the whole thing fall
under the historical exception?” Scalia jokingly asked. People enjoy
programs like bullfighting or hunting shows for their entertainment
value, not for religious or educational reasons, he added.

Chief Justice John Roberts said the law could essentially hurt many of
the animal-advocacy groups who support it. Organizations like PETA use
depictions of animal cruelty to support its animal-rights efforts.
Under the law, when exactly are they able to use these depictions?
When will the images fall under one of the exceptions?

Later on, Justice Stephen Breyer began to muse, perhaps foreshadowing
his decision. “I guess we should ask Congress to write a statute that
actually means what it wants,” Breyer said. If the law is intended to
eliminate crush videos, make sure it eliminates only crush videos, he
added. In other words, if the Supreme Court affirms the lower court’s
decision, Congress might be forced to edit the current law to prohibit
things like “crush videos” while still allowing other forms of free
speech.

PETA pimps out animal cruelty videos. The movie "Seed," which is about a serial killer, features real animal cruelty footage. It was donated by PETA to the director in exchange for 5% of profits of the video sales.

PETA does a lot of pimping folks. In fact they make big bucks pimping for outfits that support groups that PETA is SUPPOSED to working against. Some insights into that pimping can be found here.




PETA becomes a corporate animal (Blog)‏

Sent: October 5, 2009 1:47:06 PM



Human Events (blog)
PETA Becomes A Corporate Animal
by Rowan Scarborough
10/05/2009
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33822

Americans know the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals for its
wild publicity stunts in the name of protecting cows, chickens, and
other eatables.

But a closer look at media-savvy PETA shows it also has become a
corporate animal.

Its websites are full of invitations to corporate America to form
partnerships, and in the process, cut PETA in on some of the profits.
How else has the Washington-based group grown to a $34 million budget
and displayed help-wanted ads for more employees in the time of a deep
recession?

In one case, PETA castigates a credit card company for backing a
circus; yet PETA promotes its competitor who sponsors horse racing and
beef eating -- two PETA no-nos it is trying to abolish.

PETA now operates a "Business Friends" program. For $500 (Silver),
$1,000 (Gold) and $5,000-plus) Platinum, PETA grants access to its
members and their money.

"PETA Business Friends is an innovative partnership for compassionate
companies willing to assist in PETA's groundbreaking work to stop
animal abuse and suffering," the web site says.

Platinum members include what one might expect for a group that
promotes a vegetarian, or more austere, vegan lifestyle. There is
Harbor Candy Shop, which makes vegan candies and kicks back 20 percent
of proceeds to PETA. And there is MooShoes Inc., which sells
animal-free footwear.

Also on the list is VISA, the giant credit card company. The two boast
a special relationship. There is the PETA VISA card, featuring a photo
of a pig. Purchases on this card result in a 1 percent royalty to
PETA. It urges customers to shop at its own mall, where vendors return
even more profits to PETA on each sale.

The VISA-PETA alliance makes odd bedfellows. For one, VISA is a prime
sponsor of the Kentucky Derby, the world's most famous horse race.

Yet PETA wants to end thoroughbred racing. A PETA "fact sheet" states:
"Help phase out this exploitative 'sport': Refuse to patronize
existing tracks, work to ensure that racing regulations are reformed
and enforced, lobby against the construction of new tracks, and
educate your friends and family members about the tragic lives that
racehorses lead."

After the filly Eight Belles collapse and died in finishing the 2008
Kentucky Derby, PETA launched a series of press statements and blogs
complaining about the derby and horse racing in general. But there was
no criticism of VISA.

VISA also has a relationship with Omaha Steaks. VISA offers a whopping
68 percent discount when you use the card to buy a mail-order sampler
box. In other words, VISA is trying to entice people to begin eating
prime beef.

Just this week, PETA's vice president spoke at the University of
Pennsylvania on the evils of meat eating.

A PETA press statement said, "At a forum at the University of
Pennsylvania on Tuesday, PETA Vice President Bruce Friedrich will
describe the horrifying abuse that animals face when they're raised
and killed for food. Friedrich will also discuss the massive
environmental devastation caused by meat production as he makes the
case for a vegan diet. "

PETA's current major campaign is to pressure the Canadian government
to end an annual seal hunt during which the animals are bludgeoned to
death. PETA's tactic is to urge the Vancouver Olympic Organizing
Committee "to use its clout to help stop the Canadian seal slaughter."

A favorite PETA tactic is to call for a boycott. But it has not urged
one for the 2010 winter Olympic sponsors, a major one of which is
VISA.

The Washington PETA office did not respond to questions from HUMAN EVENTS.

PETA has gone after VISA's major competitor, MasterCard, on the
sponsorship issue. PETA uncovered the abuse of elephants by the
Ringling Brothers Circus. Using the phrase "NastyCard," it launched a
national campaign in 2003 to force the company to cut ties with
Ringling, which it ultimately did.

Corporate partner VISA promotes horse racing and beef, yet is immune
from such PETA campaigns.

"I think what they were doing was trying to shake down MasterCard,"
said Steven Milloy, publisher of JunkScience.com. "Where do [I] start
with PETA. I mean, PETA destroys how many animals every year. PETA
kills way more animals than the circus. Circus employs animals and
probably treats them very well ... They're in bed with VISA, not
MasterCard."

The website Petakillsanimals.com reports that PETA killed 95 percent
of the dogs and cats in its care in 2008 at a Virginia shelter,
according to the group's report to the state Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services.

Since 1998, PETA has opted to 'put down' 21,339 adoptable dogs, cats,
puppies, and kittens instead of finding homes for them," the website
says. In 2007, PETA took in 2,225 animals and killed 1,911. It said
shelters in the area have a much better record of finding homes for
pets, and notes it is less costly to kill a dog or cat than to foster
it.

Mr. Scarborough is a national security writer who has written books on
Donald Rumsfeld and the CIA, including the New York Times bestseller
Rumsfeld's War.