News Hound

In case you missed it, last week the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a unique case involving dogs. Well, not so much dogs as the selling of videos showing dogfights and other acts of animal cruelty.

I'm not sure if this case involves free speech in some manner, but at issue is whether someone should be able to profit from the sale of the torture and abuse of animals. And it seems like it's going to be a close call when the justices render their decision in several months.

The original case involved Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Va., who sold videos of Pit bulls attacking other animals through his "Dogs of Velvet and Steel" business. Another video showed Pit bulls in a dogfigting confrontation.

In 2004, Stevens was charged with violating interstate commerce laws by selling depictions of animal cruelty and was sentenced to 37 months in prison. He appealed, arguing that his sentence was longer than the one imposed on Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Michael Vick, who served 23 months for his role in a dogfighting operation.

A federal appeals court threw out Stevens' conviction.

Media groups and the National Rifle Association say the law that was used to convict Stevens is too broad.

During arguments, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alioto asked, "What about people who like to see human sacrifices? Suppose that is legally taking place someplace in the world. I mean, people here would probably love to see it. Live, pay-per-view, you know, on the Human Sacrifice Channel. They have a point of view they want to express. That's okay?"

Alioto strongly indicated that it was not, and that lawmakers would have discretion to block it.

In its decision, the appeals court said that banning depictions of animal cruelty was not necessarily an effective way to prosecute those acts. And I can see that argument.

Maybe, in this case, it's better to stop the acts of animal cruelty first. That would be a better way than stopping the filming and selling of those videos.