Should Animal Cruelty Porn Be Protected As Free Speech?

Sonia Sotomayor is gonna get a chance to win our hearts or get us all fucking pissed this week as the Supreme Court Of The United States considers whether videos depicting animal cruelty should be protected under the First Amendment as free speech. The law under review by the SCOTUS in the case, U.S. v. Stevens 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.”

The law was passed in 1999 as a reaction to the increasing prevalence of “crushing” porn where chicks crush mice and kittens with their feet and/or high heels. Supposedly, no one has been prosecuted for crush porn however, and the defendant in this case, Mr. Stevens, is in trouble for pit bull fighting videos. Without any ladies in high heels.

Sotobaby and her new black-robbed homies will have to decide whether the law is unconstitutional because it prohibits free speech. In this instance, the Supreme Court will have to decide whether to agree with the Third Circuit’s view that the law “serves no compelling government interest, is not narrowly tailored to achieve such an interest, and does not provide the least restrictive means to achieve such an interest.”

The question becomes: Does the inherent value of animal cruelty videos outweigh the government’s interest in preventing animal cruelty?

Animal Cruelty Is Illegal

Y’all know we love porn. We love weird porn, crazy porn, gross porn, even brutal porn if it’s sexy as fuck with consenting adults. And Belladonna. But animal cruelty is illegal. The Third Circuit said that preventing cruelty to animals is only “appealing . . . to our sensibilities,” and not compelling enough to prohibit these videos. But wait. Why make animal cruelty itself illegal if it’s only appealing to our sensibilities to not crush kitties with high heels? Those women and their producers should go to jail right?

But wait again. That doesn’t mean people who sell the videos after they’re made should be put in the clink though because think: Smoking weed is illegal, but ain’t nobody gonna convince us that Cheech and Chong movies should be banned. It’s a slippery slope up in this. 

Animal Cruelty Porn Is Like Child Pornography

The Third Circuit considered whether the particular type of illegal act being depicted (KITTIES BEING KILLED) is sufficiently similar to child pornography as to merit its prohibition. Hmm. Is children getting fucked or fondled or being naked on video the same as, or worse than killing animals on video? Is it even always as bad?

The court has held in the past when prohibiting child porn that it is “intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children” and “the pornographic material continues to harm the children involved even after the abuse has taken place.” They rejected the argument in this case because “while animals are sentient creatures worthy of human kindness and human care, one cannot seriously contend that the animals themselves suffer continuing harm by having their images out in the marketplace.” You’re right. Cause they’re DEAD. But yeah, presumably, the ones that make it out alive or witness the videos when their owners are jacking off to it don’t suffer emotional distress. But by spreading this shit across the internet people get all freaky and want to do it themselves and/or start selling it to make some cash on a newly popular fetish. Just like child pornography.

Maybe This Particular Law Just Sucks

The Third Circuit has held that “general references to speech repugnant to public mores cannot serve as a compelling government interest sufficient to override constitutional protections of speech.” It’s not like we should outlaw any dang thing that’s offensive. That’s what the terrorist Muslims do. And maybe, MAYYYYbe this law gets a little broad with its wording re any depiction of animal cruelty. You know, what about PETA videos and horse dong porn? No, don’t worry, the law has an exception for any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.

If this law gets overturned though it’s gonna be because it isn’t specifically tailored enough to a compelling interest. The Third Circuit suggested that a statute that would only regulate crush videos could pass muster because crush videos appeal to a prurient interest, this law in question shows “just how far afield the statute’s language drifted from the original emphasis in the Congressional Record on the elimination of crush videos.”

So, fuck. What do you think the SCOTUS and our girl Sonia should do?