Jump to content

United States v. Stevens: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m References -- formatting (quotes).
Firefly322 (talk | contribs)
6,138 edits
'
(10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''''United States v. Stevens''''' is a case to be heard by the [[United States Supreme Court]] regarding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 48--a federal statute criminalizing the knowing creation, sale, or possession of depictions of [[animal cruelty]], with the intention of placing the depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain.<ref name="3rdCircuitAppeal">[http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052497p.pdf Robert J. Stevens Appeal to the Third Circuit Court]</ref> The statute is being challenged by Stevens, who claims it is unconstitutional under the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]].<ref name="3rdCircuitAppeal"/>
'''''United States v. Stevens''''' is a case to be heard by the [[United States Supreme Court]] regarding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 48--a federal statute criminalizing the knowing creation, sale, or possession of depictions of [[animal cruelty]], with the intention of placing the depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain.<ref name="3rdCircuitAppeal">[http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052497p.pdf Robert J. Stevens Appeal to the Third Circuit Court]</ref> The statute is being challenged by Stevens, who claims it is unconstitutional under the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]].<ref name="3rdCircuitAppeal"/> His attorney, Washington lawyer Patricia Millett, has written
{{cquote|The notion that Congress can suddenly strip a broad swath of never-before-regulated speech of First Amendment protection and send its creators to federal prison, based on nothing more than an ad hoc balancing of the 'expressive value' of the speech against its 'societal costs' is entirely alien to constitutional jurisprudence and a dangerous threat to liberty<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1005/p02s01-usju.html</ref>}}

In filing an [[Amicus Curiae|Amici Curiae]] brief in support of Stevens, a dozen media outlets including the [[New York Times]], [[National Public Radio]], the [[American Society of News Editors]], the [[Association of Alternative Newsweeklies]], [[Citizen Media Law Project]], [[MediaNews Group]], the [[National Press Photographers Association]], the [[Newspaper Association of America]], the [[Newspaper Guild-CWA]], [[Outdoor Writers Association of America]], the [[Radio-Television News Directors Association]], the [[Society of Environmental Journalists]], and the [[Society of Professional Journalists]] have also sided with Stevens' attorney.<ref>http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-769_RespondentAmCu14NewsMediaOrgs.pdf</ref>


In November 2004, the District Court denied Stevens' motion to dismiss the indictment based on his assertion that the statute abridged his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.<ref name="3rdCircuitAppeal"/> In January 2005, Robert J. Stevens was convicted by a jury after a deliberation of 45 minutes.<ref>Ward, Paula Reed. [http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08352/935594-85.stm#ixzz0KfTBX5yw&D "Animal Cruelty Case Pushed to Top Court"], [[Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]], December 17, 2008</ref>
In November 2004, the District Court denied Stevens' motion to dismiss the indictment based on his assertion that the statute abridged his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.<ref name="3rdCircuitAppeal"/> In January 2005, Robert J. Stevens was convicted by a jury after a deliberation of 45 minutes.<ref>Ward, Paula Reed. [http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08352/935594-85.stm#ixzz0KfTBX5yw&D "Animal Cruelty Case Pushed to Top Court"], [[Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]], December 17, 2008</ref>
Line 18: Line 21:
*[http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/08-769_pet.pdf Petition for Writ of Certiorari]
*[http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/08-769_pet.pdf Petition for Writ of Certiorari]
{{refend}}
{{refend}}

== External links ==
*[http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1005/p02s01-usju.html "Supreme Court to decide case on animal cruelty and free speech"]. Warren Richey, staff writer. ''[[Christian Science Monitor]]''. October 5, 2009
*[http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cruelty23-2009sep23,0,1482217.story?page=1 "Supreme Court to weigh depictions of animal cruelty"]. David G. Savage. [[LA Times]]. September 23, 2009.
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/us/19scotus.html "Free Speech Battle Arises From Dog Fighting Videos"]. ADAM LIPTAK. [[NY Times]]. September 18, 2009.




[[Category:United States Supreme Court case articles without infoboxes]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court case articles without infoboxes]]

Revision as of 22:24, 5 October 2009

United States v. Stevens is a case to be heard by the United States Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 48--a federal statute criminalizing the knowing creation, sale, or possession of depictions of animal cruelty, with the intention of placing the depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain.[1] The statute is being challenged by Stevens, who claims it is unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[1] His attorney, Washington lawyer Patricia Millett, has written

The notion that Congress can suddenly strip a broad swath of never-before-regulated speech of First Amendment protection and send its creators to federal prison, based on nothing more than an ad hoc balancing of the 'expressive value' of the speech against its 'societal costs' is entirely alien to constitutional jurisprudence and a dangerous threat to liberty[2]

In filing an Amici Curiae brief in support of Stevens, a dozen media outlets including the New York Times, National Public Radio, the American Society of News Editors, the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, Citizen Media Law Project, MediaNews Group, the National Press Photographers Association, the Newspaper Association of America, the Newspaper Guild-CWA, Outdoor Writers Association of America, the Radio-Television News Directors Association, the Society of Environmental Journalists, and the Society of Professional Journalists have also sided with Stevens' attorney.[3]

In November 2004, the District Court denied Stevens' motion to dismiss the indictment based on his assertion that the statute abridged his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.[1] In January 2005, Robert J. Stevens was convicted by a jury after a deliberation of 45 minutes.[4]

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. 48 was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment's free speech guarantee. The Supreme Court agreed to review the lower court's decision on April 20, 2009. [5] In June 2009 the Animal Legal Defense Fund filed a brief in defense of the animals’ interests. The brief encourages the Court to recognize the protection of animals as a compelling government interest and uphold Section 48. [6] Oral arguments in the case will likely be heard in the fall of 2009.

The Stevens tapes

In the original court case, defendant Robert J. Stevens was convicted of creating three videotapes that depicted animal cruelty, for the purpose of selling the tapes in interstate commerce. Two of the tapes depicted pit bulls engaged in dog fighting. The third tape depicted a pit bull attacking a domestic pig as part of the dog being trained to catch and kill wild hogs; this video included "a gruesome depiction of a pit bull attacking the lower jaw of a domestic farm pig."[7] Although Stevens' criminal prosecution concerned only three tapes, he had made $20,000 in two and a half years from selling nearly 700 videos.[8] Stevens was not accused of engaging in animal cruelty himself, nor of shooting the original footage from which the videos were created. However, the footage in each of the videos "is accompanied by introductions, narration and commentary by Stevens, as well as accompanying literature of which Stevens is the author."[1]

The appeals court stated that dog fighting, or the use of dogs to hunt hogs, may be made illegal to protect animals from cruelty. However the court ruled that the law in question, prohibiting the depiction of animal cruelty, violates the First Amendment, as it would create a new category of speech not protected by the free speech provision of the Amendment.[7]

Notes

  1. ^ a b c d Robert J. Stevens Appeal to the Third Circuit Court
  2. ^ http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1005/p02s01-usju.html
  3. ^ http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-769_RespondentAmCu14NewsMediaOrgs.pdf
  4. ^ Ward, Paula Reed. "Animal Cruelty Case Pushed to Top Court", Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, December 17, 2008
  5. ^ "Supreme Court Grants Review in Animal Cruelty/First Amendment Case", Daily Writ, April 20, 2009
  6. ^ Brief Amicus Curiae of Animal Legal Defense Fund in Support of Petitioner
  7. ^ a b Opinion of the Third Judicial Circuit on United States v. Stevens
  8. ^ Brief of the Center on the Administration of Criminal Law as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner

References

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Stevens&oldid=318139590"