By Ravi Bhatia-Talk Radio News Service

Animal cruelty clashed with first amendment rights today in the U.S. Supreme Court case of United States v. Stevens, which also marked Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s second day sitting as an Associate Justice in the Court’s new term. 

In 2004, Robert Stevens was indicted and charged with selling three dogfighting videos to undercover law enforcement agents. Congress enacted the statute in 1999, which deemed that whoever sells depictions of animal cruelty would be fined and/or imprisoned for up to five years. 

Steven’s 37-month sentence was 14 months longer than NFL quarterback Michael Vick’s, who had participated firsthand in a dogfighting venture. Although dogfighting is illegal in all 50 states, the practice is legal in Japan, where much of the footage in Stevens’ videos came from. 

According to Neal Katyal, the government lawyer defending the law, a “robust market” in animal cruelty exists. Upholding the statute would dry up the market for such material, he argued. It would also add to the precedent set in New York v. Ferber in 1982, when the Court ruled that the First Amendment right to free speech did not forbid states from banning the sale of child pornography.

The Ferber case was the last time that the question of whether or not material was too obscene to receive first amendment protection was addressed.

Patricia Millett argued on behalf of Stevens, suggesting that the statute was drafted too broadly and that it applied to legally protected activity.

Congress had enacted Article 48 in order to outlaw “crush videos,” which depicted close-ups of women inflicting torture on animals such as hamsters, puppies and kittens with their bare feet or while wearing high-heeled shoes.

The Supreme Court will release their decision on the case later this year, although the tone of the hearing implies that the justices are leaning towards affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals in overturning the law.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) describes how all voices on the political spectrum are heard through the freedom of talk radio.
“All find their way to the airwaves of this country since the demise of the fairness doctrine,” said Pence. (0:29)

 

 Standard Podcast [0:29m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

By Michael Combier-Talk Radio News Service

Paul Smith, a Law Partner at Jenner & Block, recalls two legal cases on the subject of the first amendment and free speech in which Judge Sotomayor was focused on dealing with the doctrine on a case by case basis.(1:35)

 

 Standard Podcast [1:35m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

In what is being seen as a set-back for the TV industry, the Supreme Court Tuesday morning tentatively gave the Federal Communications Commission license to regulate the use of curse words during live broadcasts. Opponents of the close 5-4 ruling say the FCC did not adequately explain its policy shift.

The court explicitly refused to discuss freedom of speech concerns about the regulation, saying that discussion would have to come in another case.

The FCC has long regulated obscene and indecent language on broadcast television, but until 2006 it did not take action over so-called “fleeting expletives,” such as using the F-Word and S-Word spontaneously in a non-literal sense.

In 2006 the FCC issued fines for Fox’s broadcast in 2002 of a live appearance by Cher in which she said, “I’ve also had critics for the last 40 years saying that I was on my way out every year. Right. So f*** ‘em.” The FCC also fined a 2003 broadcast in which Nicole Richie said, “Why do they even call it ‘The Simple Life?’ Have you ever tried to get cow s*** out of a Prada purse? It’s not so f***ing simple.”

Fox appealed the fine to the courts, arguing that the FCC had not justified the change in their policy, since in 2004 the FCC allowed a broadcast of Bono using a fleeting expletive to go without fine.

Victoria Jones interviews Luke Sheehan of the Campus Freedom Network on Feb. 27, 2009 at CPAC. He brings up examples of universities across the U.S. punishing students for public expression which was deemed “offensive.” He says this happens because university administrators want to treat students like children. (06:33)

 Other Media: Download

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) led a news conference to call for members of Congress to sign the discharge petition for the Broadcaster Freedom Act by Radio Independence Day, July 4th. Both Boehner and Pence voiced their concern on Americans’ right to free speech over the radio. (more…)

Speaking through an interpreter at an American Enterprise Institute panel on bloggers in the Middle East, Iranian blogger Arash Sigarchi says that it is easier to acquire narcotics than it is to access information. (0:28)

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Speaking at an American Enterprise Institute panel on bloggers in the Middle East, Lebanese blogger Tony Badran says that blogs can be used both for dissent against regimes and also tools for disinformation by regimes. (0:30)

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download