WASHINGTON — The video images were disturbing -- a tiny white kitten singed with the flame from a lighter; a gray cat struggling beneath a woman's spiked heel; pit bulls tearing into a trapped animal.
The Supreme Court has often said that freedom of speech includes ugly and foul language. But this fall the justices will be looking at video clips like these to decide whether selling films of dogfights or animal torture is protected from prosecution under the 1st Amendment.
The dispute, expected to be heard in early October, has driven a wedge between traditional free-speech advocates and defenders of the humane treatment of animals.
Book publishers, movie makers, photographers, artists and journalists have joined the case on the side of a Virginia man who was convicted of selling videos of dogfights. They argue that any new exception to the 1st Amendment, no matter how laudable the goal, poses a danger to free expression.
"The road to censorship is paved with good intentions," said Joan Bertin, executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship.
But animal rights advocates say no one should be able to profit from the abuse and torture of animals for entertainment.
"This is not about speech, but about a commercial activity of a sickening type," said Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States.
The society said it had seen a resurgence of horrific "crush videos" for sale on the Internet in the last year, ever since a U.S. appeals court struck down on free-speech grounds a federal law that banned the selling of videos of animals being maimed and tortured.
These underground videos, said to appeal to a bizarre fetish, typically include tiny animals being crushed by a woman's shoe.
Investigators for the Humane Society said hundreds of such videos could be purchased online. They showed clips of them to reporters this month.
Laws in all states
All 50 states have laws against animal cruelty, including bans on dogfighting and cockfighting. The 2007 dogfighting case against NFL quarterback Michael Vick prompted a new round of laws, including a California measure that added penalties for attending a dogfight.
Ten years ago, Congress made it a federal crime to market videos or other depictions of live animals being illegally "maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed." Its sponsors made clear they did not intend to interfere with legal hunting, fishing or the slaughter of animals for food.
