Legal News

Legislative Branch Responds After Supremes? Animal Ruling

By Amir Efrati

The Supreme Court's ruling today on dog-fighting videos isn't likely to be the last word on the issue. Hours after the court struck down a law banning images of animal cruelty, the law's author told WSJ’s Jess Bravin he was ready with a new law narrowly targeting the "crush videos" that initially prompted the legislation. Reports Bravin:

Rep. Elton Gallegly (R., Calif.) told the Law Blog he was planning to introduce a bill "before the end of the day that I think will be consistent with what the court was talking about."

The court voted 8-1 to invalidate Gallegly's 1999 legislation because it covered almost any depiction of cruelty or violence to animals. The law was so broad it exposed a swath of constitutionally protected speech to criminal prosecution, the court held. But the opinion left open the possibility that a narrower measure could pass constitutional muster.

Gallegly (pictured) tells us his new bill will go after the depraved images that prompted the bill 10 years ago: videos of women in high heels or barefoot slowly crushing chicks or other small animals to death.

The videos were created to feed the appetite of fetishists who found the images exciting or sexually gratifying, Congress found. The bill passed with wide bipartisan support and was signed by President Bill Clinton. After it took effect, advocates said, the market for such videos dried up, as did the practice it sought to discourage.

"This legislation, unlike a lot of things we do around here, worked very well. It stopped this business in its tracks very fast," Gallegly said.

Clinton, observing First Amendment concerns that it swept too broadly, directed the Justice Department to limit prosecution to videos depicting "wanton cruelty to animals designed to appeal to a prurient interest in sex." But in 2004 federal prosecutors went after dog-fighting movies instead.

The new measure will be limited to the type of video Clinton described, Gallegly said.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on April 20, 2010 (boomark / email).