Facts
In this case, the Supreme Court examined 18 U.S.C.S. § 48 in respect to freedom of speech. § 48 was used for any visual or auditory of animal cruelty for the sake of “creation, sale, or possessions” (p. 5).
The defendant, Stevens, was selling videos of dogfights and other forms of animal cruelty. He was charged under Section 48 because of these videos. He was set to defend his actions with the First Amendment.
Stevens says that the government tries to balance “freedom of speech and societal costs” (p. 6) in order to see which is more valid. The government agrees that § 48 is limited to specific subjects.
§ 48 is then scrutinized as to whether it applies constitutionally, and if so what its reach is in relation to the states and their borders.
Procedural History
Stevens is charged criminally under Section 48 for selling videos of dogfighting. Stevens argued that under the First Amendment he was able to sell dogfighting videos, saying that § 48 was “facially invalid” (p. 9). The District Court denied this, saying subjects in § 48 are unprotected by the First Amendment. The Court sentenced Stevens to three sentences of thirty-seven months in prison along with an additional three years supervised release (p. 9).
The Third Circuit claimed § 48 was facially invalid. The Court of Appeals claimed Section 48 regulated speech that is protected by the First Amendment and said it was facially invalid as well. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari.
Parties Arguments
Stevens first argued that it was within his First Amendment right to be able to make and sell these videos. He said that § 48 would be facially invalid under his First Amendment right of freedom of speech. Section 48 would be facially invalid because Stevens claimed it was used too broadly since it has been used for subject material that is lawful.
The U.S. Government does not support the content of the material in question, but agrees that the section regulating the material is too broad and needs to be narrowed in order to be constitutional. The government also argued that animal cruelty should be added to the list of freedom of speech restrictions available and that the depictions in question fall into the “First Amendment Free Zone” (‘ Board of Airport Comm’rs of Los Angeles v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., 482 U.S. 569, 574, 107 S. Ct. 2568, 96 L. Ed. 2d 500 (1987)). In addition, regarding freedom of speech, the government argued that there should be a balance when deciding which freedom of speech to uphold: compare the “value of the speech against its societal costs” (p. 10).
Issues Presented
1. Is Section 48 consistent with Article I of the Constitution?
2. Is 18 U.S.C.S. § 48 constitutional?
3. Is Section 48 too narrow or too broad?
4. What does Section 48 encompass?
5. Where do states draw the line in regard to Section 48 and illegal material?
The Holding
No. Section 48 was too broad to be validated under Article I of the Constitution.
No. 18 U.S.C.S. § 48 was significantly too broad in scope and therefore unconstitutional under Article I.
Section 48 was found to be too broad. It was questioned as to whether its depictions were too specific and narrow, but the Supreme Court found them to be too broad.
The court did not decide as to whether Section 48 was limited to “crush videos” (p. 7) or to animal cruelty in general.
Section 48 dealt with any material that showed illegal activities. However, if this material was produced in a state where the activity was legal, and then was used in a state where the activity was illegal it would create problems and therefore increases the scope of the section. There was a necessity for uniformity in regard to what aspects of the section were applicable to the states, and a need for clarity as to what Section 48 encompassed. The Supreme Court merely said Section 48 was too broad in this regard.
Disposition
The Court agreed with an 8-1 decision that § 48 was unconstitutional. Only one member dissented. The Supreme Court also affirmed the judgement of the Court of Appeals. 533 F.3d 218, is also affirmed.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court agrees that Section 48 needs to be limited to specific material related to the content of the section. In addition, the Supreme Court says that applying a test like the U.S. government prescribed can be dangerous, and that the freedom of speech also includes categories that do not necessarily meet the balance of societal costs and benefits (p.10).
Analysis
The Court decided that Section 48 was unconstitutional because of its broad scope in regard to its depictions. However, the content itself was not decided upon. Until this decision is made as to whether Section 48 is limited to “crush videos” or animal cruelty in general, this may create a setback for other similar cases that may arise in the future. In addition, it was not decided upon as to whether Section 48 would be rewritten or not. Overall, until Section 48 is revisited or revised, similar court cases may face some difficulty when dealing with animal cruelty media and other similar content.
However, the outcome of this case did more clearly define what freedom of speech encompasses. It also clarified that freedom of speech is not defined by societal concepts of costs and benefits, but that it may go beyond those boundaries in order to protect that freedom.