Dartblog

An interesting article in the New York Times today about animal cruelty and constitutional protection of depictions thereof, available here.

The crux of the debate is not whether animal cruelty itself is legal or illegal, but rather whether depicting legal animal cruelty, specifically for sexual purposes, is legal. The Third Circuit struck down the law prohibiting such depictions and the conviction of one man under the law by a margin of 10 to 3 but the issue is likely to go before the Supreme Court.

The law does contain an exception for materials of “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value.” But Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment specialist at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the exception was small comfort. “What constitutes serious value,” Professor Volokh said, “is very much in the eye of the beholder.”

Professor Volokh, who said he believed the law was unconstitutional, offered a prediction about its fate in the Supreme Court. “I think they’re going to strike it down,” he said. “It’s going to be at least 6-3, perhaps even unanimous.”