Denver (October 5, 2009)

The American Humane Association strongly supports the federal government’s position prohibiting videos, photographs and other depictions of acts of cruelty to animals for commercial gain. The organization urges the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the law, subsequent to hearing arguments tomorrow in the case of the United States of America v. Robert J. Stevens.

Stevens was convicted of selling videos of dogs fighting each other and attacking other animals. While supporters of Stevens’ position include many “freedom of speech” proponents who do not necessarily condone animal cruelty, American Humane believes that this law is necessary and does not infringe on the true intent of the First Amendment.

“This is a case about animal cruelty, plain and simple,” said American Humane President and CEO Marie Belew Wheatley. “Every state has passed laws to protect animals from cruelty and neglect and has found this issue to be important in protecting communities. Animal cruelty should be a compelling government interest that overrides any attempt to intentionally harm animals under the guise of ‘right to free speech.’ While many parties may argue the technicalities and interpretations of the law, the real focus should be that it is immoral, it is inhumane and it should be illegal to exploit, torture and kill animals for someone’s twisted sense of ‘entertainment’ and someone else’s profit.”

Subsection (a) of the law, U.S.C. Part I, Chapter 3, Section 48, states: “Whoever knowingly creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both.” The exceptions are “any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.”

“We think it’s clear to any reasonable person that dogfighting, other animal fighting and ‘crush’ videos, which show real and intentional harm to animals for entertainment purposes, have no merit and no place in society,” Wheatley said. “Animal cruelty impacts people and communities because cruelty to animals has been linked to violence to humans. To allow these crimes to be exempted from prosecution will undermine the safety of communities. Those who inflict, perpetuate or profit from it should be prosecuted. We urge the Supreme Court to focus on what’s at stake regarding the humane treatment of animals and uphold the law.”

American Humane’s Film & Television Unit monitors the use of animals in films and is the authority behind the “No Animals Were Harmed”® end-credit disclaimer that appears on productions that ensured the safety of animals. Thus, American Humane’s Certified Animal Safety Representatives™ often oversee the simulation of animal cruelty in the making of filmed productions. “We think it’s obvious that the simulation of harm to animals in filmed productions that American Humane monitors is not what the law is concerned with when it mentions ‘depiction,’” said Karen Rosa, vice president of the Film & Television Unit. “When we are on set, it’s because the film industry truly cares about the welfare of the animals appearing in the production and wants the public to know that no animals were mistreated or injured. We encourage the Supreme Court to consider the difference between depicted acts of violence, such as in legitimate productions that we have monitored, and real acts of cruelty and violence that are perpetrated on animals for the sake of profit or for dubious ‘entertainment’ or ‘artistic’ purposes.”

American Humane’s support for the law also stems from the organization’s long-time work to educate the public and professionals about The Link® between violence to people and violence to animals. Many studies indicate that animal maltreatment is part of a complex constellation of family violence. While not all adult animal abusers necessarily harm their partners or children, and not all children who harm animals go on to become violent adults, compelling evidence is causing researchers and practitioners to view animal abuse as a “red flag” for other antisocial behaviors.