Who Knew? Squashed Hamster Video Law

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Third Circuit Rules in Favor of Anti Squashed Hamster Video Law

Third Circuit Rejects Proposed New "Depiction of Animal Cruelty" First Amendment Exception,

by a 10-3 en banc vote (U.S. v. Stevens). Here's my summary of the issue from when I blogged about another such case last year, though I've revised it slightly.

The relevant statute, 18 U.S.C. § 48, criminalizes (a) "knowingly creat[ing], sell[ing], or possess[ing] a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce," though with an exception for (b) "any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value."

"[D]epiction of animal cruelty" is defined in (c) to include "any visual or auditory depiction ... of conduct in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed, if such conduct is illegal under Federal law or the law of the [jurisdiction] in which the creation, sale, or possession takes place, regardless of whether the maiming, mutilation, torture, wounding, or killing took place in the [jurisdiction]." This means that it's a federal crime to distribute videos of cockfighting or dogfighting in, say, California (assuming the depictions lack "serious ... value") even if the cockfighting or dogfighting was legal in the place (say, Puerto Rico or Japan) in which the video was created.

The statute was enacted as an attempt to stop the distribution of so-called "crush videos," which generally depict a woman's legs and feet, often in high heels, stepping on insects, mice, or kittens; and it does indeed seem to cover such videos, assuming the relevant state law bars the underlying conduct (often yes as to killing kittens, often no as to killing insects). Don't ask me why people would want to watch this stuff, but apparently some get their jollies this way.

[MarleysGh0st]

Can Mr. Hamster have Sonny arrested, now?

[Squashed Hamster]

The statute was enacted as an attempt to stop the distribution of so-called "crush videos," which generally depict a woman's legs and feet, often in high heels, stepping on insects, mice, or kittens; and it does indeed seem to cover such videos, assuming the relevant state law bars the underlying conduct (often yes as to killing kittens, often no as to killing insects). Don't ask me why people would want to watch this stuff, but apparently some get their jollies this way.

Well, now we know what Sonny's been up to lately. I hope he gets deported to some backwards country where they step on dumbasses with bad hair just for fun.....

Mr. Hamster

[ulysses5019]

Can't we just all get along.

[Thousandaire]

Third Circuit Rules in Favor of Anti Squashed Hamster Video Law

Didn't they rule against it?

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Third Circuit Rules in Favor of Anti Squashed Hamster Video Law

Didn't they rule against it?

]

You are right I didn't read the blog entry carefully enough. Hamsters are still at risk.

[NellyLunatic1980]

Anything in there about gerbils?

[VAdame]

"Insects"?? Does this mean no more "RAID!" commercials?