WASHINGTON — Could the government outlaw a future “Human Sacrifice Channel” on cable TV? That question became the focus of a Supreme Court argument Tuesday on the reach of the First Amendment and whether Congress can outlaw videos showing dogs fighting or other small animals being tortured and killed.
Last year, a federal appeals court, citing freedom of speech, struck down a law against selling videos with scenes of animal cruelty.
Tuesday, most of the justices sounded unwilling to revive that law, fearing it might be used against depictions of bullfighting or illegal hunting.
Justice Antonin Scalia, an avid hunter, insisted the First Amendment did not allow the government to limit speech and expression unless it involved sex or obscenity.
He repeatedly cited Adolf Hitler: “Can you keep him off the screen” just because his deeds were vile?
Alito questions
But Justice Samuel Alito garnered the attention of his colleagues with a series of questions on whether videos portraying humans being killed would be protected as free speech.
Alito said there may well be a “pay-per-view” market for programs made outside the United States, so there would be no criminal jurisdiction here, that showed real people being killed. He called it the “Human Sacrifice Channel” and wondered aloud whether Congress could outlaw the showing of such programs in the United States.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked about “snuff films.” The lawyer defending a Virginia man convicted of selling dogfighting videos struggled to answer the questioning. She said the First Amendment usually protects speech and expression, even if the underlying conduct is ugly or illegal. She said the government should work to stop the illegal acts, rather than make it illegal to show the acts.
Lawyer struggles
Chief Justice John Roberts asked, “You think it is unconstitutional for Congress to forbid the ‘Human Sacrifice Channel’?”
For much of the hour, the government’s lawyer, Neal Katyal, struggled to convince the justices that the law targeted only “crush videos,” or dogfighting videos.
Congress passed the law 10 years ago with the intention of drying up the underground market for videos that showed tiny animals being crushed by women in high-heel shoes.
More recently, the law has been used to prosecute people who sell dogfighting videos. Robert Stevens, the Virginia man, was convicted for selling videos that contained scenes of pit bulls fighting in Japan, where such activity is legal.
By the argument’s end, the justices seemed to be weighing two possibilities. One was to narrow the reach of the law to focus only on the “crush videos.” The other was to strike down the law entirely.
A ruling is not likely for several months.
Speak up.
