I am a vegetarian because, among other reasons, I like animals more than I like humans — and I don’t eat humans.
So naturally, when I was sitting in my Ethics in Journalism class a couple weeks ago and was introduced to the concept of “crush videos,” I was outraged. But more than being outraged, I was surprised.

For those unfamiliar with the term, “crush videos” are films that cater to the population of individuals who have a “crush fetish,” or those who derive sexual pleasure from watching small animals being crushed or stepped on, typically to death and by women wearing high heels. Small animals include, but are not limited to, birds, insects and kittens — basically anything you could think to fit under a heel.

Generally speaking, I can accept most fetishes — even the ones I’m really not on board with (and as someone who will graduate with a specialization in human sexuality, believe me when I say I’ve heard them all).Although I might not want to take part in any of these, I can see where the general fascination with such activities is harmless. If they are kept in the privacy of one’s own bedroom and don’t infringe on the safety of other living things, I really cannot take up issue with any of them. Really, I only can give my well wishes that they continue a healthy, happy and safe sex life.

However, there is most definitely a line to be drawn, and up until recently, the Supreme Court had agreed with me.
Because of the recent court case of United States v. Stevens, the law in place to mostly target criminalizing “crush videos” has been overturned so as not to punish those who were unable to qualify films showing animal cruelty as legal under the law.

In a nutshell, the bill previously stated the filming, distribution or possession of a video depicting animal cruelty that was solely meant for sexual pleasure and void of any educational, journalistic, scientific, religious, political or historical value was a crime. This has now been changed by a vote of eight to one on April 20 by the Supreme Court to pronounce such standards in violation of the First Amendment.

The decision was brought into question after Robert J. Stevens was convicted due to his involvement in creating and distributing three video tapes depicting what he called the proper way to train and teach pit bulls how to hunt, one of which included what many media outlets describe as a very violent attack on a pig by one of the dogs.

As a journalist, I hold my First Amendment rights near and dear to my heart, right up there with my ability to breathe and the creation of caffeine. However, in this instance, I do believe that while Stevens was in the right to appeal his conviction, the original law was written in a manner that should have allowed him to make such films, given he was actually doing what he claims, and it should have been kept in place. If Stevens was making a documentary style training video to educate owners about their pit bulls, then perhaps a graphic scene that was not set up belonged in the film.
Is it pretty? No, but it is the reality of what can happen when these things go wrong.

Although I can understand that many would think this law would have too many faults to remain, if cases brought up in the name of such things were given the time and consideration for all of the categories protected under the law, then I don’t see how it could be a bad thing. I can think of no reason other than the categories outlined to depict animal cruelty in such a public and graphic manner.

The idea behind Stevens’ video, in my eyes, was a noble one in theory. Although I might not agree with the hunting aspect, I can understand his desire to make an educational film about a dog breed many owners do not understand due to an undeserved reputation.

Endeavors such as Stevens’ would and should have been protected under the original law as opposed to the new one which is, quite literally, killing two birds with one heel.

Cole Bertsos is the State News features editor. Reach her at bertsosc@msu.edu.