United States v. Stevens
Issues
May the government permissibly ban depictions of animal cruelty under the First Amendment?
The United States prosecuted Robert J. Stevens (“Stevens”) for violating 18 U.S.C. § 48, which states: “Whoever knowingly creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.” Stevens was prosecuted for selling videos depicting dog fights. Stevens claimed that § 48 violates his First Amendment right to free speech and is therefore unconstitutional. The Third Circuit held that § 48 reached a form of protected speech and that the government’s interest in preventing animal cruelty is not a sufficiently compelling interest to justify a ban on depictions of animal cruelty. How the Supreme Court decides this case will reflect its view on the scope of the First Amendment right to speech and affect the power of Congress to identify new areas of unprotected speech.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 48 is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
Robert J. Stevens (“Stevens”) operated a business that advertised and sold pit bull-related videos and merchandise. United States v. Stevens, 533 F.3d 218, 220–221 (3rd Cir. 2008). During an investigation, law enforcement officials bought three videotapes from Stevens, the first two showing footage of pit bulls in dogfights, and the third showing footage of trained pit bulls attacking wild boar.
Edited by
Additional Resources
- Wex: Law about First Amendment
- Animal Legal & Historical Web Center: Facts and history about dog fighting
- The First Amendment Center: Free speech
- The Humane Society: Excerpts from Stevens’s videos
- Robert Barnes: “Supreme Court to Weigh First Amendment Protections for Animal Abuse Videos”