Crush these videos

You squeal with delight. A shaky hand-held camera shot opens on an adorable baby bunny. His big dark eyes look into yours through the screen, and his nose twitches just a bit, as though he is trying to cringe from the high heel that is just above his head.

Just when your eyes lock with the pleading bunny’s, the high heel comes down, slowly at first, but as it nears the baby animal you have just fallen in love with, the foot holding the heel gains audacity and stabs deep into this bunny. You squeal with terror.

This is precisely the type of video which was banned by a federal law in 1999 that prohibited the sale or possession of any video showing animal cruelty, if the actions contained in the video are illegal in a given area. While this piece of legislation would seem to make sense in its understanding of the disgusting world of animal cruelty, it was overturned by the Supreme Court this week in a vote of eight to one.

This piece of legislation was deemed unconstitutional on grounds that it violates the First Amendment. The Supreme Court notes that because this law effectively outlawed even hunting videos in the District of Columbia, it reaches farther than was originally intended — into the realm of what the official opinion cites as “alarming breadth.”

While the current federal law broadly banning animal cruelty videos has been overturned on First Amendment grounds, a more concrete and narrowly framed piece of legislation is in order.  

A more specific piece of legislation is necessary in the United States because videos of animal cruelty have absolutely no social, historical, artistic or moral merit. These videos are more than just emotionally repulsing, they effectively condone vile and violent behavior merely for personal enjoyment.

By declaring this cruelty itself illegal while protecting videos depicting it, we are making a certain allowance for this type of behavior. While this effort for more humane treatment of animals was a broad basis for the 1999 law, it rose out of specific events.

“Crush videos” are those similar to the one described above, in which an individual watches someone crush a small animal on film — either with their foot, shoe or buttocks — for the desired effect of sexual gratification.

These videos, while the original target of the 1999 legislation, are only a single category in the larger world of animal cruelty being captured on film for amusement.

A new piece of legislation, which clearly yet broadly defines animal cruelty and offers realistic and meaningful repercussions for engaging in it, is exactly the type of bill which needs to take the place of this 1999 law.

The existence of film that documents, for personal gain or pleasure, the pain of another living being is an exploitation of the First Amendment. It is obscene, repulsive and without any merit, even in the most liberal understanding of artistic worth. A new piece of legislation that protects the rights of animals and counteracts this behavior will lead Americans to a more compassionate view of the world around us.


E-mail: schammoo@indiana.edu