EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Wayne Pacelle

Wayne Pacelle

Posted: July 29, 2010 09:58 PM

Animal Crush Videos Make Comeback; Senate Must Act

What's Your Reaction:

Today, The Humane Society of the United States released new information, in a telephone press conference with reporters, about gruesome animal crush videos that have made a comeback since the federal courts overturned the 1999 law Congress passed to ban their production and sale. In April, the U.S. Supreme Court declared this federal anti-cruelty law invalid and unconstitutional, creating an opening for peddlers of this smut to get back into this business.

Last week, at the urging of The HSUS and in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling, the House passed legislation by a vote of 416-3 to fill the gap in the law and to reinstate a narrowly tailored federal prohibition on this disgusting commerce. Today, U.S. Reps. Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.) and Gary Peters (D-Mich.), the co-authors of H.R. 5566, joined me in a call to urge the U.S. Senate to take up the House legislation and ban interstate and foreign commerce in these obscene animal "crush" videos before the 111th Congress concludes its work.

Today's call was more than an exhortation, but also a cataloguing of this cruel trade. Following up on the leads provided by some of our sources, an HSUS researcher viewed 36 "preview clips" of crush videos, sent to prospective consumers to tease them into buying the full-length versions of the videos. These details are horrifying, and I feel badly about even writing them down. But I hope that knowledge of these abuses will compel good people to act. The videos depict the following:

  • Three young girls crush a puppy to death with their bare feet. The audio includes cracking sounds as the puppy's bones break. Three dead puppies can be seen lying on the floor nearby.
  • A girl dressed in a leather mini-skirt and stiletto heels pokes the heel of her shoe through the eye of a small monkey.
  • A girl wearing a flimsy negligee, stockings and stiletto heels crushes a rabbit, who screams as his hind legs are crushed.
  • Two young girls in stilettos crush a medium-sized dog whose legs and mouth are tightly tied. One of the girls inserts the heel of her shoe into a dog's eye socket.
  • A girl skins a live dog with a knife, removing the animal's ear and the skin and fur on the dog's head.

Last September, we released a status report about the re-emergence of crush videos in the wake of a federal appellate court's overturning of the 1999 federal law. Our investigators found that, at that time, crushing videos were easily available for purchase. The password protected part of one website had 118 videos for sale. Videos ranged in price from $20 to $100. Each of the videos for sale contained footage of multiple animals, translating into hundreds of animals being tortured and crushed to death for the profit-making of this one website alone.

In United States v. Stevens, the Supreme Court struck down the law Congress passed on narrow grounds, finding that the 1999 federal law was overbroad because it could be interpreted to apply to many unintended circumstances, including hunting videos. The Court did not say that depictions of extreme animal cruelty are protected by the First Amendment. Instead, the Court unanimously recognized the long history of animal cruelty laws dating back to the founding of our country, and carefully left open whether Congress could draft a narrower law that would only reach depictions of extreme and illegal cruelty. At oral argument, Justice Stephen Breyer stated that if Congress passed a statute aimed solely at "crush videos," there would be "a very strong case" for upholding that law. Like our child pornography laws, our drug laws, and the basic obscenity doctrine, the Court has left an opening for the Congress to crack down on sale of such materials in the United States as a method of reducing demand, and hopefully reducing production.

H.R. 5566 narrowly limits its reach to obscene depictions in which an actual live animal is intentionally crushed, burned, drowned, suffocated, or impaled in a manner that would violate a criminal prohibition on animal cruelty under federal law or the law of the state in which the depiction is created, sold, distributed, or offered for sale or distribution. We wouldn't allow someone to murder someone or molest a child, and if they were not caught in the act, sell the video and profit from the underlying crime. The same principle is at work here, and the nearly unanimous House vote reveals that lawmakers understand what's at stake.

This post originally appeared on Pacelle's blog, A Humane Nation.

 
 
  • Comments
  • 16
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:38 AM on 08/03/2010
Sadism for sale, that people would commit such horrific acts of lethal brutality against helpless animals is abhorrent in the extreme. That they would then have videos made of this despicable sadism for sale to sadistic voyeurs, and have an obviously lucrative market for them, says much about the innate cruelty of the people involved. Animal snuff-vide­os, what next ? I despair for the future of animal welfare if this is the sort of group sadism they are up against. The people involved in this barbarous practice need to be jailed. I cannot even conceive of the mind-set that would enjoy such horror, MONSTERS !
06:06 PM on 08/01/2010
Bread and circuses.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jo SmithDromey
11:56 PM on 07/31/2010
What kind of roaring a'hole would kill an animal for the sheer pleasure of it? Oh yeah. Game hunters and snuff movie makers. I'm not at all heartened to see that "mankind" has not progressed beyond it's insipid, indefensib­le need to show it's immense, destructiv­e power over all other living things. God.
09:34 AM on 08/01/2010
As a game hunter, I am disappoint­ed in you for ignorantly lumping me in with the sickos that do this crush stuff. I hunt game for meat, not for trophy or any sick pleasure. You may be anti-hunti­ng, which is fine, but there is a huge difference between what these wack jobs do and what a conservati­onal minded hunter does to aqcuire meat for his table. Shame on you for trying to make them one in the same.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jo SmithDromey
12:59 PM on 08/01/2010
'plogies, 5ilver. What does "would kill an animal for the sheer pleasure of it?" mean to you? Responsibl­e hunting? Many more atrocities against animals are committed in slaughterh­ouses across this country than are caused by hunters for meat. I don't begrudge you your deer, rabbit, squirrel, pheasant, duck, whatever. I personally feel regret when I hit a rabbit in the road. But that's just me.
IMOPINIONH8D
because I want it empty...
07:13 PM on 07/31/2010
The money that goes to the humane society does not go to your local shelter, that money goes to guys like pacelle who are getting rich exploiting gullable people, that have a Bambi complex, and think all animals are CUTE.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
05:13 PM on 07/31/2010
Your silly law got struck down. Cope with it.

Use the perfectly suitable existing cruelty legislatio­n.
02:07 PM on 07/31/2010
These pathetic cowards thrive on anonymity. Put up a big cash reward to encourage others to snitch on them. Then publish their names, photos and addresses. The monsters will then spend their lives running, hiding, and looking over their shoulders. And hopefullya sane, natural justice will prevail and purge them out of society for good. Their genes are best left out of the future human race.
photo
Dredd
Our government is a wartocracy.
11:43 AM on 07/31/2010
The baptism into the Oilah Akbar religion makes it easy to block things from the mind ...

http://blo­gdredd.blo­gspot.com/­2010/07/ba­ptism-of-o­ilah-akbar­.html
03:25 AM on 07/31/2010
If this activity is only in this country and is supported by it's twisted excess of lawyers and their legal nit-pickin­g then America is truly on the road to hell.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Masters
To take my property is to take my means to live
06:17 PM on 07/30/2010
This is some sick stuff. It seems that the video's rather than being outlawed should be used to find and punish the perpetrato­rs. The killers of the animals and the producers both should be punished.

If they are produced in places where it is legal then we need to shame the owners in our own country who choose to buy them. At least keep them undergroun­d and ashamed.
11:17 AM on 07/30/2010
Those videos sound truly horrifying­, so why wait for Congress to pass the new law? If those acts are already illegal, shouldn't law enforcemen­t be trying to track down the producers of the videos RIGHT NOW?

HSUS, you have an enormous war chest, and you frequently offer rewards for informatio­n that leads to arrests in poaching cases. Have you ponied up some cash for rewards that lead to the arrest of these video producers?

And is anyone putting any money into treatment for the people who enjoy such videos? No law in and of itself will correct such pathologie­s.
03:17 AM on 07/30/2010
How on earth could the federal courts have overturned the 1999 law Congress passed to ban the production and sale of this filth? I cannot imagine the level of aggressive stupidity that was involved in such a despicable decision. I hear their reasoning for the decision but the way the courts wrote the decision immediatel­y allowed these videos of horror to start again.
Research has shown many times that this type of cruelty towards animals is a precursor to becoming or already being a serial killer. The fact that these women/chil­dren are being videoed by someone and others must be involved in the making and selling/po­sting of these horrific videos; it must be assumed there is a much larger community of potential serial killers (or just your every day ordinary brutal psychopath­) than we could have imagined possible and don’t forget the fact there is apparently an audience willing to pay for it. I would submit that because of the decision by the courts to overturn the original law in the way it was done they are responsibl­e for creating possible serial killers where none may have existed before. I cannot get my head around the fact that there are so many people so sick as to enjoy this level of cruelty. It boggles the mind to even imagine what kind of mind, what kind of person it takes to enjoy such a thing.
This new law must pass!
07:15 AM on 08/02/2010
The federal courts when they struck down this law did exactly what they should have. The law was overbroad and subject to prosecutor­ial discretion - selective interpreta­tion and enforcemen­t. A huge number of media and other organizati­ons submitted amicus briefs to the court describing how the law was in violation of the first amendment and would discourage freedom of speech, press and expression­. You should blame congress for passing the law in the first place. I rarely agree with the HSUS and Pacelle, but a tightly written law that targets crush videos is clearly needed.
11:28 PM on 07/29/2010
I can't even read this. As a volunteer at the Humane Society of Reno, Nevada...a lover of all living things (and rats, most especially­--yes--lov­ing, kind companiabl­e rats--I just can't bear this kind of stuff. It keeps me awake in the dakest hours of the night. Is there any punishment cruel enough for humans who do this sort o f thing...?
IMOPINIONH8D
because I want it empty...
10:35 PM on 07/31/2010
I've had all kinds of pets and livestock in my lifetime took care of them all, never cared for rats and mice they carry disease and eat my pets and livestocks food plus they shit in it. I don't have a clue what a crush film is and don't care if I never see one. As for taking my post off the google, all I can say is if you live in a country that allows free speech, it means you might get offended sometime.L­OL