Ban on videos of animal cruelty
tested
Seller of dogfighting tapes on
trial here in first case brought under 1999 law
Wednesday, January
12, 2005
By Torsten Ove, Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette
In the first trial of its kind in the United
States, a Virginia man who sells dogfighting videos worldwide is being
prosecuted here under a federal law banning videos showing cruelty to animals.
The law was motivated by an effort in
California to stop the proliferation of "crush videos," in which women in spike
heels slowly crush small animals to death for the sexual gratification of a
bizarre subculture of fetishists.
The practice outraged animal-rights activists
and spurred a California congressman to draw up a bill that prohibits the
"creation, sale or possession" of depictions of animal cruelty.
President Clinton signed it into law in 1999.
Now Robert J. Stevens, 64, of Pittsville, Va.,
is on trial here before Senior U.S. District Judge Alan Bloch, charged with
three counts that could send him to prison for 15 years.
The case boils down to a battle over the
Constitution, because the facts are not in dispute.
Stevens and his wife, Julie, are pit bull
enthusiasts who advertised in an underground dogfighting journal and then sold
three dogfighting videos to undercover agents, including one that also showed
pit bulls attacking pigs.
Stevens, who runs a company called Dogs of
Velvet and Steel, narrates the videos like a boxing analyst on such titles as
"Pick-A-Winna" and "Japan Pit Fights," sometimes comparing various dogs to
Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier and Mike Tyson.
The government says the videos, while not the
crush videos that led to the federal statute, are still illegal under that law.
Stevens and his public defender, Michael
Novara, argue that the videos are protected free speech under the First
Amendment because they fall under an exception to the law.
Depictions of cruelty are legal if they have
"serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical
or artistic value."
"Let me say right now: We concede that animals
are being injured in these videos," Novara said, but he insisted the videos are
historical and educational.
His three expert witnesses will testify to
that, he said. One of the videos, for example, is called "Catch Dogs" and shows
pit bulls tearing into farm hogs. Novara said one of his witnesses, a California
hunter, will testify that the video is designed to show how pit bulls should and
should not be trained for hunting wild boars.
On the video, Stevens can be heard narrating
as a dog named Katie tears out the throat of a pig.
"This is what you don't want," he says at one
point, indicating that the dog needs to be retrained to catch and not kill.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Kaufman said
the video featuring pigs is clearly a depiction of animal cruelty.
"The farm pigs are absolutely helpless," he
said in court papers. "The scenes have nothing to do with legitimate hunting."
Kaufman said the pit bull fights, some of
which are filmed in Japan, where dogfighting is legal, also show animal cruelty.
Some of the fights last over an hour, and the dogs are obviously exhausted and
wounded.
Kaufman's argument equates the sale of animal
cruelty videos to the distribution of child pornography, because he said both
foster a demand for images of an illegal activity.
All 50 states ban cruelty to animals, but no
laws made distribution of videos illegal.
The push to enact a federal law came from U.S.
Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Calif., who was disgusted at crush videos. He introduced
the bill after the Ventura County district attorney had trouble prosecuting an
Anaheim man who sold crush videos online.
To make a case, police had to prove a tape was
made within a three-year statute of limitations and identify those involved.
That was almost impossible because the videos show women only from the waist
down, crushing mice, kittens, hamsters and puppies with high heels.
In addition to protecting animals, he said he
was concerned because studies show animal cruelty often escalates to violence
against people.
Clinton called the practice of making the
videos "deplorable and indefensible."
But he also said he recognized the First
Amendment concerns and wanted the Justice Department to limit its prosecutions
to those videos made for a "prurient interest in sex."
Part of Novara's argument is that the Stevens'
videos have nothing to do with sex and that the law is too broad. He said it
could be used to outlaw fishing or hunting videos, or depictions of cruelty from
popular culture.
As an example, he pointed to an episode of the
TV drama "The Shield" in which a police detective strangles a cat to feel what
it is like to kill.
"The showing of movies or television programs
containing a single depiction of harm to animals, whether real, staged or
virtual, could be prosecuted," Novara said.
The trial continues today.
(Torsten Ove can be reached at tove@post-gazette.com or
412-263-2620.)
