US v. Stevens: A Brief History
Stevens was convicted in the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania for violating 18 U.S.C. § 48 which prohibits someone from “knowingly creating, selling, or possessing a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain.” He appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit which overturned his conviction and held Stevens’ videos were protected speech under the First Amendment. The United States appealed the Third Circuit decision to the United States Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 48.
For avid hunters and the press, this statute sounded an alarm. What about the hunting channel? What about newsworthy pieces intended to inform the public of animal cruelty or reports and investigations into promoters of animal cruelty?
Congress heard those concerns when it enacted 18 U.S.C. § 48 and provided exceptions to the prohibitions. The statute does not apply to “any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.”
But it was not that simple for our Supreme Court.
Typically with questions vagueness in a statute, the Court considers, among other things, the legislative intent behind the challenged statute.
In this case, dogfighting videos were an afterthought for Congress and the US Attorneys Office. At the core of the § 48 statute were “crush videos”. The videos depict women in high heels stepping on and crushing small animals to their death. One animal welfare organization wrote in its amicus brief to the Court about a crush video where a woman stomps a restrained kitten to its death by inserting the heel of her shoe into the kitten’s mouth and repeatedly fracturing its skull. This is all videotaped and then sold through the internet or on tape in the United States.