Ban on videos of animal cruelty tested

Pittsburgh, PA -- In the first trial of its kind in the United States, a Virginia man who sells dogfighting videos worldwide is being prosecuted here under a federal law banning videos showing cruelty to animals.

The law was motivated by an effort in California to stop the proliferation of "crush videos," in which women in spike heels slowly crush small animals to death for the sexual gratification of a bizarre subculture of fetishists.

The practice outraged animal-rights activists and spurred a California congressman to draw up a bill that prohibits the "creation, sale or possession" of depictions of animal cruelty.

President Clinton signed it into law in 1999.

Now Robert J. Stevens, 64, of Pittsville, Va., is on trial here before Senior U.S. District Judge Alan Bloch, charged with three counts that could send him to prison for 15 years.

The case boils down to a battle over the Constitution, because the facts are not in dispute.

Stevens and his wife, Julie, are pit bull enthusiasts who advertised in an underground dogfighting journal and then sold three dogfighting videos to undercover agents, including one that also showed pit bulls attacking pigs.

Stevens, who runs a company called Dogs of Velvet and Steel, narrates the videos like a boxing analyst on such titles as "Pick-A-Winna" and "Japan Pit Fights," sometimes comparing various dogs to Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier and Mike Tyson.

The government says the videos, while not the crush videos that led to the federal statute, are still illegal under that law.

Stevens and his public defender, Michael Novara, argue that the videos are protected free speech under the First Amendment because they fall under an exception to the law.

Depictions of cruelty are legal if they have "serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value."

"Let me say right now: We concede that animals are being injured in these videos," Novara said, but he insisted the videos are historical and educational.

His three expert witnesses will testify to that, he said. One of the videos, for example, is called "Catch Dogs" and shows pit bulls tearing into farm hogs. Novara said one of his witnesses, a California hunter, will testify that the video is designed to show how pit bulls should and should not be trained for hunting wild boars.

On the video, Stevens can be heard narrating as a dog named Katie tears out the throat of a pig.

"This is what you don't want," he says at one point, indicating that the dog needs to be retrained to catch and not kill.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Kaufman said the video featuring pigs is clearly a depiction of animal cruelty.

"The farm pigs are absolutely helpless," he said in court papers. "The scenes have nothing to do with legitimate hunting."

Kaufman said the pit bull fights, some of which are filmed in Japan, where dogfighting is legal, also show animal cruelty. Some of the fights last over an hour, and the dogs are obviously exhausted and wounded.

Kaufman's argument equates the sale of animal cruelty videos to the distribution of child pornography, because he said both foster a demand for images of an illegal activity.

All 50 states ban cruelty to animals, but no laws made distribution of videos illegal.

The push to enact a federal law came from U.S. Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Calif., who was disgusted at crush videos. He introduced the bill after the Ventura County district attorney had trouble prosecuting an Anaheim man who sold crush videos online.

To make a case, police had to prove a tape was made within a three-year statute of limitations and identify those involved. That was almost impossible because the videos show women only from the waist down, crushing mice, kittens, hamsters and puppies with high heels.

In addition to protecting animals, he said he was concerned because studies show animal cruelty often escalates to violence against people.

Clinton called the practice of making the videos "deplorable and indefensible."

But he also said he recognized the First Amendment concerns and wanted the Justice Department to limit its prosecutions to those videos made for a "prurient interest in sex."

Part of Novara's argument is that the Stevens' videos have nothing to do with sex and that the law is too broad. He said it could be used to outlaw fishing or hunting videos, or depictions of cruelty from popular culture.

As an example, he pointed to an episode of the TV drama "The Shield" in which a police detective strangles a cat to feel what it is like to kill.

"The showing of movies or television programs containing a single depiction of harm to animals, whether real, staged or virtual, could be prosecuted," Novara said.

The trial continues today.