The case involves Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Va., a dog-fighting expert whose videography includes such titles as Japan Pit Fights, Pick a Winna and what is now his best-known effort, the hour-long, Catch Dogs and Country Living, reports The Wrap.
For his work, he became the first person ever prosecuted under a 1999 statute called the Depiction of Animal Cruelty Law due to a dog-fight clip in his film, Catch Dog, even though those actions are legal in Japan, where the footage was filmed and he didn't take part in the dogfight.
The law applies to any recording (audio or video) of “conduct in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed” even if it is legal where it occurred and was filmed. Lawyer and former IDA President, Michael C. Donaldson points out, "The threat to the documentary community is obvious when one considers films such as The Cove and Food, Inc., to name two recent ones or Roger and Me, to go back just a little ways. Certainly videos concerning hunting could fall within this statute, even though, as in Stevens case, the hunting was legal where the video was shot."
Read a lengthier explanation of the issue and the IDA's involvement below by lawyer and former IDA President, Michael C. Donaldson.
A district court convicted Stevens of animal abuse and cruelty and sentenced him to 37 months in prison (more than NFL quarterback Michael Vick served for running a dogfights).
His conviction was overturned when a divided appeals court refused to create an exception to the First Amendment that applied to cruelty to animals, striking down the law as unconstitutional, The Wrap story continues.
Today, the government is asking the Supreme Court to overturn the appeals court ruling and treat depictions of cruelty to animals the same as child pornography.
The conclusion of this Hollywood cliffhanger are still developing. In the meantime, read the following issued by Michael C. Donaldson regarding the case and the IDA's involvement:
The US Supreme Court case in which IDA filed an Amicus brief is set to be heard on October 6, 2009. The case has been called “the next great First Amendment battle” by the New York Times. It involves a documentary filmmaker--Robert Stevens--who made a film that concerns the history and status of pit bulls. The film included a clip (not taken by Stevens) of a Japanese dog fight. In Japan, dog fights are legal and the dogs are not killed. They are different from American style dog fights. Stevens was sentenced to over three years in federal prison under a 1999 federal statute that makes it a crime to show any cruelty to animals in a film with certain limited exceptions.
An Amicus Brief means that IDA--acting as a friend of the court instead of a party in the action – is telling the high court why the case being heard is important to the membership of IDA and urging the court to rule in favor of the filmmaker. Attending the hearing for IDA will be former President, Michael C. Donaldson. Donaldson is a lawyer in private practice and arranged for IDA to a part of the Amicus filings in this case.
The threat to the documentary community is obvious when one considers films such as The Cove and Food, Inc., to name two recent ones or Roger and Me, to go back just a little ways. Certainly videos concerning hunting could fall within this statute, even though, as in Stevens case, the hunting was legal where the video was shot.
A federal appeals court struck down the statute last year on first amendment grounds. The government appealed to the Supreme Court. The court will have to decide whether the depiction of animal cruelty is so vile and so harmful that it must be banned across the board.
The origins of the law are, in themselves, a bit bizarre. The motivation for its enactment was a House report about people who are sexually aroused by watching videos of small animals being crushed. President Bill Clinton signed the bill with an instruction to the Justice Department to limit prosecution to “wanton cruelty to animals designed to appeal to a prurient interest in sex.” Nevertheless, the Bush administration prosecuted three cases under the law that didn’t have the “prurient interest in sex.”
The law applies to any recording--audio or video--of “conduct in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed” even if it is legal where it occurred and was filmed. It is only important that it be illegal where the video is sold or exhibited. It would be illegal to possess, sell, or exhibit a travel documentary containing footage of a bull fight in Spain or Mexico in the US or a hunting video in Washington DC, where all hunting is illegal. There is an exception for films that have “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value” but that, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.
In addition to IDA, Film Independent and IFP signed the Amicus brief. The New York Times and several other news gathering organizations also filed briefs. It is interesting that courts have already struck down statutes involving cruelty to humans. And Mr. Stevens sentence was 14 months longer than the sentence imposed on Michael Vick, the football player who organized dog fights and was very harsh on the dogs who did not perform well.