We knew we had an uphill fight in making our argument to the media in United States v. Stevens, the case argued earlier this week before the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the federal Depiction of Animal Cruelty Law. Many news organizations filed amicus briefs with the Court urging that the law should be struck down. And I believe that many news stories that appeared this week were tilted against us, including the portrayal of defendant Robert Stevens as a documentarian. He is a leading dogfighting enthusiast, and his lawyers admitted to the press that Stevens sold his dogs into dogfighting rings.

All of you who wrote to me agreed that people crushing animals or staging dogfights and then selling the videos for profit does not constitute speech. We at The HSUS are devoted advocates of the First Amendment, but there are certain narrowly defined forms of behavior where there must be limits, such as fighting words, obscenity, and child pornography. We think the Court should include barbaric and illegal forms of animal cruelty in the list.

Today, I run some of your observations.

I viewed CNN's story on this argument before the Supreme Court Oct. 6. I was sickened and saddened that the human species is actually capable of this kind of depravity and has the audacity to claim it as a constitutionally protected activity. If the Supreme Court justices vote in favor of this appeal before them, they will be providing a stimulant to every deviant that enjoys torturing the helpless including children, the physically and mentally impaired, the elderly and, yes, animals. Animals often being the first recipient of a twisted mind. —Priscilla Clancy

I am hoping and praying that the Supreme Court makes the right decision in this case and upholds the Depiction of Animal Cruelty law. We need stronger anti-cruelty laws and I support the Humane Society's work in this effort to make the world a safer place for all animals. What I don't understand is why this issue even has to be considered by the Supreme Court. It is just common sense to me that any makers of videos depicting illegal behavior should be prosecuted as committing a crime. The intent of the freedom of speech amendment was to allow all citizens to express their opinions freely without fear of punishment, not to be allowed to commit illegal acts and sell recordings of their crimes to profit on the misery and pain of other living beings. I am sure that our founding fathers could never have imagined that the First Amendment would be used to defend the torture of innocent animals. —Julie Quinones

When I read the article on crush videos the other day I was so outraged and despaired that I felt I would not be able to express my comments in a civil and intelligible way, and so I didn't. Even now I am not sure I can; all I can say is that I am appalled, sad and disgusted, like everyone else. I cannot believe there are enough sick "people" to create a market for this.  My thoughts, love, and prayers go to all those innocent, defenseless creatures that had the misfortune to fall victim of this monstrous atrocity. And my thanks and support go to Wayne and the HSUS for fighting this revolting barbarity. —Romina Pierini

Wayne, thank you for this article. I'm grateful to find you and the Society putting this case and issue in its proper place, front and center. Your argument is right. The Stevens-style videos can't be produced without cruelty. We are against cruelty. The videos must stop. —Porter

Speech defined is what this should be about. Our forefathers wrote this law in order to give a voice to the populace against tyranny. Freedom of speech is the most abused and overused "right" we have. Since when does expression, words from one’s lips, become defined as the right to watch helpless animals be forced to fight or die??? If this law is thrown out I for one will not stop writing and complaining until it is restored and made even stronger! Animals have rights only because we advocate for them...if our highest court can’t or won’t advocate for them, then humanity is at risk in this country. —Sondra Hickman

Now let's hope they do the right thing. —Susan Heublein

This is possibly the most heinous form of cruelty I have heard of. I have seen humans at their worst in videos of fur farming, whaling, and canned hunts, but this is unfathomable. What possible excuse could these people have for this, other than feeding the appetites of criminals? I am constantly frustrated by my state representative's lack of outrage regarding deplorable acts such as this. Animals constantly take a back burner position in politics. Progress is made more slowly than the rate at which people think up new ways to profit off of animal abuse. Once again, I am up in arms. —Sarah

The only way to stop the horrible animal cruelty existing in our world today is for the American people to demand that our courts, our senators and representatives, and our government agencies enforce existing animal welfare laws and, if necessary, enact new ones. I am so proud that both of my Connecticut senators continually and completely support animal welfare legislation! —JS

I cannot begin to tell you how grateful I am for the HSUS's continued efforts to end animal cruelty and suffering. Currently, I am interning on the Hill and was lucky enough to attend the case at the Supreme Court this morning. After this incredible experience, I cannot wait to finish school and devote the rest of my life to animal welfare, as all of you have at the HSUS. Thank you for giving a voice to those who cannot speak for themselves. —Lauren

Many thanks to the HSUS for its efforts to maintain the current legal sanctions against video depictions of animal cruelty. I strongly disagree that it's difficult to distinguish expression that is causative or contributory from expression that intends to inform. Let's remember why this law was originally enacted—to combat crush videos, pornographic videos of individuals crushing small animals to death with their bare feet or stiletto heels. The small animals include kittens and puppies. This is a deviant sexual fetish. Clearly, as with child pornography, the expression corrodes society. Its creation violates every standard of common decency and civility. Like child pornography, depictions of animal cruelty whose only objective is to provide sexual arousal or blood lust must remain against the law! —Sheila Wellehan

It is hard to believe in the 21st century that we have to deal with this barbaric behavior as a right to free speech issue. This is not about speech; this is video-depicted violence against innocent animals for the pleasure of mentally disturbed minds that unfortunately exist in our civilized society. What impact will this have on our youth if they get to see all this barbarism splattered all over the Internet? Please let us know ASAP when the decision is made by the Supreme Court. —DeniseA

I remember hearing about these videos back in high school and it makes me sick to my stomach that they're re-emerged. How barbaric can people get? The NRA and the Safari Club International are appalling in their agreement with such obvious acts of cruelty. I hope that the HSUS is able to enforce strong legislation against these profane and disgusting acts. —Sara N.

I am ASHAMED to be a part of a species that can equate the "right" to produce hunting videos and the like with crush videos. —Jonathan Gilbert