Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
The Court noted that the House Committee Report described these videos as “the intentional torture and killing of helpless animals,” which “appeal to persons with a very specific sexual fetish who find them sexually arousing.” The bill had significant support in Congress because animal cruelty is already illegal. Due to the difficulties in prosecuting this clandestine activity, Congress focused on criminalizing the creation and distribution, for commercial gain, of the resulting videos.
The Court’s majority, however, determined that the statute also potentially applied to activity that might be deemed cruel but is not illegal, such as hunting videos. Based on this finding, the Court overturned Mr. Stevens’ conviction for distributing videos of dogfighting, even though that behavior is illegal in all 50 states. In doing so, the Court supported the tradition of protecting First Amendment rights by refusing to uphold a conviction based upon a statute that it believed was not sufficiently narrowly tailored.
Importantly, the Court did not address whether preventing animal cruelty is a compelling governmental interest worthy of constitutional protection. Rather it determined that the statute in question was too broad and encroached on protected interests. Thus, the Court found the statute regulates speech protected by the First Amendment and therefore could not survive a constitutional challenge.
As noted in the Center for Animal Law Studies’ amicus curiae brief submitted in Stevens, American courts have long recognized that preventing animal cruelty ultimately serves human interests. One reason for this is the historical view that animal cruelty is abhorrent because the act of violence itself, regardless of the victim, dulls humanitarian feelings. One court in 1904 noted that constantly seeing disfigured and mutilated animals tends to corrupt the public morals. And as early as 1896, a court made clear that the legislative goal of anti-cruelty laws was “not only to protect these animals, but to conserve the public morals….”
The Center’s brief also references numerous studies explaining the connection between human and animal violence. These studies form the basis of many fundamental policy decisions. For instance:
· In the 1970’s, the FBI began using animal cruelty as one of the key factors to predict future violent behavior;
· The International Association of Chiefs of Police urges law enforcement to take animal cruelty reports seriously because violence against animals provides an early opportunity to prevent future violent crimes; and
· An article published in the Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association summarizes the importance of addressing animal cruelty, stating that “animal abuse and neglect do not occur in a vacuum but are part of a pattern of dangerous and antisocial behavior jeopardizing people, animals, and inanimate property.”
The cumulative strength of the evidence illustrates that violence knows no boundaries. This requires regulation of both the actual acts of violence and the depictions of those acts.
Friday, April 9, 2010
As attorneys and professors working in the field of animal law, we know the issues relating to animal testing are more complex than the interviewees in This Monkey Died for You would have readers believe. For the past few years, we have visited the
For instance, there are a number of respected science-based organizations, such as the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing at Johns Hopkins, that reject animal testing on scientific and ethical grounds.
Second, for every purported advancement there is a countervailing setback that shows animal testing is not an accurate predictor of outcomes in humans.
Third, if the ability to feel pain is one of the factors that triggers ethical consideration, then there should be no distinction in the protections available to an animal regardless of whether he or she is bred for research.
Fourth, Mr. Newman incorrectly portrays most animal rights activists as “extremists.” It should not be considered extreme to hope for and work toward solutions that address both advancements for human health and protections for animals.
To clarify one quote attributed to Dr. Doane, the law does not require the reduction of animals in experiments, although there is a government policy statement that encourages this outcome.
We welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues further with WW or with OHSU representatives.
Pamela Frasch, J.D. Assistant Dean, Animal Law Program and Executive Director, Center for Animal Law Studies
Professor Kathy Hessler, J.D., LL.M. Director, Animal Law Clinic Center for Animal Law Studies