Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

United States v Stevens: Gnawing Away at Freedom of Speech or Paving the Way for Animal Rights?

  • Published:
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article examines United States v. Stevens, a case recently decided by the Supreme Court, and its relation to animal law and freedom of speech issues, specifically the contention between the two, caused by the statute in question at the heart of the case. While animal rights advocates wish to frame the case through an anti-animal cruelty perspective, those seeking to protect freedom of speech have made the statute an issue of First Amendment rights. Is 18 USC § 48 an imposition on free speech or a step in the right direction towards protection of animals and promotion of their rights? It is argued here that the Supreme Court should have recognized the Stevens case as an important development in animal rights and held that the statute is narrowly tailored, based on a compelling government interest, and that the protection of animals from harm overshadows any possible speech or expression that is found in crush videos, dog fighting videos, and the like.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. U.S. CONST. amend. I.

  2. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989).

  3. Brooklyn Inst. of Arts and Sciences v. City of New York, 64 F. Supp. 2d 184 (E.D.N.Y. 1999).

  4. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919).

  5. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).

  6. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 757 (1982).

  7. No. 08-769, (S. Ct. 2009).

  8. United States v. Stevens, 533 F.3d 218, 220-221 (3d Cir. 2008).

  9. Id. at 221.

  10. Id.

  11. Id. at 220.

  12. 18 U.S.C. § 48(a) (1999).

  13. 18 U.S.C. § 48(b).

  14. 18 U.S.C. § 48(c)(1).

  15. Defendant’s Brief in Opposition of Writ of Certiorari, United States v. Robert J. Stevens, (No. 08-769) 2009 WL 788673 (Mar. 20, 2009).

  16. Brief for the Petitioner, United States v. Robert J. Stevens, (No. 08-769) 2009 WL 788673 (June 8, 2009).

  17. Id.

  18. Id. at 18.

  19. Id.

  20. Humane Society of the United States, Crush Videos Make a Comeback, Humane Society, Sept. 15, 2009. http://www.humanesociety.org/news/news/2009/09/crush_video_091509.html.

  21. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 3.

  22. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 18.

  23. Defendant’s Brief in Opposition of Writ of Certiorari, United States v. Robert J. Stevens, (No. 08-769) 2009 WL 788673 (Mar. 20, 2009) at 2.

  24. Id.

  25. Library of Congress, Presidential Signing Statements, http://www.loc.gov/law/help/statements.php (last updated July 02, 2009).

  26. Humane Society of the United States, Crush Videos Make a Comeback, Sept. 15, 2009 http://www.humanesociety.org/news/news/2009/09/crush_video_091509.html.

  27. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942).

  28. Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969).

  29. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

  30. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).

  31. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982).

  32. 458 U.S. 747 (1982).

  33. 413 U.S. 15 (1973).

  34. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 39 (1973).

  35. Id.

  36. Id.

  37. 333 U.S. 507 (U.S. 1948).

  38. Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 509 (U.S. 1948).

  39. Id. at 509–510.

  40. Id. at 510.

  41. Defendant’s Brief in Opposition of Writ of Certiorari, United States v. Robert J. Stevens, (No. 08-769) 2009 WL 788673 (Mar. 20, 2009) at 5.

  42. Defendant’s Brief, United States v. Robert J. Stevens, (No. 08-769) 2009 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 692 (Jul. 20, 2009) at 40.

  43. Id. at 13.

  44. Id. at 40.

  45. Id. at 54.

  46. Id.

  47. Id. at 7.

  48. 101 Cal. Rprt. 2d 247 (App. Ct. 2000).

  49. People v. Thomason, 84 Cal. App. 4th 1064 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2000).

  50. Brief for The Reporters Committee for Freedom of The Press and Thirteen News Media Organizations as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondent, United States v. Robert J. Stevens, (No. 08-769) 2009 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 590

    (July 23, 2009) at 3.

  51. Id. at 1–2.

  52. Brief for The DKT Liberty Project, The American Civil Liberties Union, and The Center for Democracy and Technology as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondent, United States v. Robert J. Stevens, (No. 08-769) 2009 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 603 (July 27, 2009) 13, 14–15.

  53. 533 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2008) (en banc).

  54. United States v. Stevens, 533 F.3d 218, 231 n.13 (3d Cir. 2008) (en banc).

  55. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 255 (U.S. 2002).

  56. Brief for First Amendment Lawyers Association as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondent, United States v. Robert J. Stevens, (No. 08-769) 2009 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 615 (July 27, 2009) at 6.

  57. Id. at 6, 19.

  58. Id. at 32.

  59. Brief for Animal Legal Defense Fund as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, United States v. Robert J. Stevens, (No. 08-769) 2009 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 472 (June 15, 2009) at 3–4.

  60. Id. at 6.

  61. Id. at 2, 10.

  62. Brief for American Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Neither Party, United States v. Robert J. Stevens, (No. 08-769) 2009 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 467 (June 12, 2009) at 13.

  63. Id. at [18, 19].

  64. Id. at 18.

  65. Brief for the Petitioner, United States v. Robert J. Stevens, (No. 08-769) 2009 WL 788673 (June 8, 2009) at 32.

  66. Id. at 33.

  67. Brief for Animal Legal Defense Fund as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, United States v. Robert J. Stevens, (No. 08-769) 2009 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 472 (June 15, 2009) at 4.

  68. Id.

  69. Id.

  70. Brief for Animal Legal Defense Fund as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, United States v. Robert J. Stevens, (No. 08-769) 2009 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 472 (June 15, 2009) at 3.

  71. 315 U.S. 568 (1942).

  72. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572 (1942).

  73. Brief for Animal Legal Defense Fund as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, United States v. Robert J. Stevens, (No. 08-769) 2009 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 472 (June 15, 2009) at 5.

  74. United States v. Stevens, 130 S. Ct. 1577 (U.S. 2010).

  75. Id.

  76. Id.

  77. Id.

  78. Id.

  79. Id.

  80. Id.

  81. Id.

  82. Id.

  83. Brief for American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, United States v. Robert J. Stevens, (No. 08-769) 2009 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 470 (June 15, 2009) at 19–21.

  84. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 us 520, 540–541 (1993).

  85. Brief for American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, United States v. Robert J. Stevens, (No. 08-769) 2009 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 470 (June 15, 2009) at 19–20.

  86. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 us 520, 537 (1993).

  87. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 537, 543–544 (1993).

  88. For a more extensive discussion of compelling government interests see [9].

  89. 18 U.S.C. § 48(a).

  90. 18 U.S.C. § 48(b).

References

  1. Baker, Thomas E. 2009. Are dog fight videos protected by the first amendment? Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases. 1 Preview 11.

  2. Blasi, Vincent. 1977. The checking value in first amendment theory. American Bar Foundation Research Journal 2: 521–649.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bradley, Curtis A., and Eric A. Posner. 2006. Presidential signing statements and executive power. Constitutional Commentary 23: 307–364.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cassuto, David. 2009. Posting to AnimalBlawg, http://animalblawg.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/free-speech-at-the-margins-aldf-and-animal-law-profs-file-amicus-brief-in-u-s-v-stevens/.

  5. Cassuto, David. 2008. Animal sacrifice and the first amendment. In Animal law and the courts: A reader. eds. Taimie Bryant, David Cassuto, and Rebecca Huss, 59–67. St. Paul: Thompson/West.

  6. Collins, Michael. 2009. Humane Society says animal crush videos increasing. Ventura County Star. http://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/sep/15/humane-society-says-animal-crush-videos/.

  7. Francione, Gary L. 2004. Animals-property or persons? In Animal rights: Current debates, new directions, ed. Cass R. Sunstein, and Martha C. Nussbaum, 108–142. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gersen, Jacob E., and Eric A. Posner. 2008. Soft law: Lessons from congressional practice. Stanford Law Review 61: 573–627.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hanna, Cheryl, and Pamela Vesilind. 2009. Preview of United States v Stevens: Animal law, obscenity and the limits of government censorship. Vermont Law School Legal Studies Research paper Series. No. 10-08.

  10. Krotoszynski, Ronald J. 2006. The first amendment in cross-cultural perspective: A comparative legal analysis of the freedom of Speech. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mauro, Tony. 2009. Court seems hostile to law against animal-cruelty depictions. First Amendment Center. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=22169.

  12. Meiklejohn, Alexander. 1948. Free speech and its relation to self-government. Clark: The Lawbook Exchange, LTD.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Mill, John Stuart. 1991. On liberty: In focus, ed. John Gray, and G.W. Smith, London: Routledge.

  14. Nussbaum, M.C. 2006. Frontiers of justice: Disability. Nationality, Species Membership. New York: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Parker, R.Terry. 2007. Note, sold downstream: Free speech, fair use, and anti-circumvention law. Pierce Law Review 6: 299–322.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Posner, R.A. 2004. Animal rights: Legal, philosophical, and pragmatic perspectives. In Animal rights: Current debates, new directions, ed. Cass R. Sunstein, and Martha C. Nussbaum, 51–78. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Reynolds, Michael. 2009. Note, depictions of the pig roast: Restricting violent speech without burning the house. Southern California Law Review 82: 341–388.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Romero, Victor C. 2009. Restricting hate speech against “Private Figures”: Lessons in power-based censorship from defamation law. Columbia Human Rights Law Review 33: 1–39.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Saunders, Kevin W. 1994. Media violence and the obscenity exception to the first amendment. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 3: 107–177.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Schauer, Frederick. 1982. Free speech: A philosophical enquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Schulman, Adam Ezra. 2009. History of animal-cruelty law at issue in Stevens poses incongruity. First Amendment Center. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=21912&FORM=ZZNR6.

  22. Simon, Richard. 1999. Law banning sale of ‘Crush Videos’ signed. Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/1999/dec/11/local/me-42768.

  23. Singer, Peter. 1989. All animals are equal. In Animal rights and human obligations, ed. Tom Regan, and Peter Singer, 148–162. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sunstein, Cass R. 2004. Can animals sue? In Animal rights: Current debates, new directions, ed. Cass R. Sunstein, and Martha C. Nussbaum, 251–262. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Werhan, Keith. 2004. Freedom of speech: A reference guide to the United States constitution. Westport: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Wise, Steven M. 2000. Rattling the cage: Toward legal rights for animals. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wise, Steven, M. 2002. Drawing the line: Science and the case for animal rights. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Wise, Steven M. 2002. Dismantling the barriers to legal rights for nonhuman animals. Animal Law 7: 9–17.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to David N. Cassuto, Professor of Law at Pace University School of Law and Adjunct Professor at Fordham University School of Law for introducing me to Animal Law and guiding me as I worked on a previous draft of this article. I would also like to thank Professor Deborah Cao of Griffith University for her insightful edits and the editorial staff of The International Journal for the Semiotics of Law for hosting this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fordham University School of Law, J.D. 2010, New York City, New York, USA

    Irina Knopp

Authors
  1. Irina Knopp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Irina Knopp.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Knopp, I. United States v Stevens: Gnawing Away at Freedom of Speech or Paving the Way for Animal Rights?. Int J Semiot Law 24, 331–349 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-010-9184-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-010-9184-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation