Taking Back America

…one post at a time

Animal Advocates File Brief in Federal Appeal of Controversial “Crush” Video Case

People who hurt animals are evil but torturing animals for sexual gratification goes beyond the realm of evil. And anyone who is capable of hurting an innocent animal is capable of doing the same to humans.  If you see nothing wrong with this then move along, nothing to see here. If you agree that torturing animals is wrong then reblog this and spread the news to raise awareness of what’s going on so we can stop not only this kind of evil, vile torture of animals but all animal cruelty/torture.

Remember: If you aren’t part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.

From Animal Legal Defense Fund
Posted on August 29, 2013

Animal Legal Defense Fund Argues for Prosecution of Houston Puppy and Kitten Torturers

For immediate release:
Lisa Franzetta, Animal Legal Defense Fund
Megan Backus, Animal Legal Defense Fund


HOUSTON — Today, the national nonprofit Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), along with the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, filed an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in a landmark federal case against a couple accused of making animal torture videos for viewers’ sexual arousal—also known as “crush” films.

Last August, defendants Ashley and Brent Wayne Justice were arrested in Houston and charged with violating the “Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010” (“the Act”) by producing and selling obscene videos of Richards torturing dogs, cats, and other animals. On April 27, 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Sim Lake, in the Southern District of Texas, ruled that the conduct in the videos was not obscene and the Act infringed upon the First Amendment rights of the defendants. Last Friday, federal prosecutors filed an appeal with the Fifth Circuit. ALDF’s amicus brief supports this appeal, arguing the Act is limited in scope to obscene videos of animal torture for the sexual gratification of viewers. The brief also argues that obscene animal torture does not warrant First Amendment protection under the definition of obscenity articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court.

According to ALDF, these custom-ordered videos are intended for the sexual pleasure of viewers and constitute “obscene” criminal animal cruelty. In one such video, a provocatively dressed Richards strangles and steps on a screaming cat. Richards inserts a dagger into the cat’s anus, rips his skin off, chops off his paws with a cleaver, pulls out internal organs, urinates and spits on the animal, articulates sexual slurs, and then chops his head off.

“Animals are horrifically victimized in these videos for the sexual gratification of paying customers,” said Stephen Wells, executive director of the Animal Legal Defense Fund. “The Constitution does not protect the vile industry of animal abusers who profit from the obscene suffering of sentient beings.”

Copies of the amicus brief are available upon request.


Also see


2 responses to “Animal Advocates File Brief in Federal Appeal of Controversial “Crush” Video Case

  1. petitebonheurs 2013-09-30 at 7:25 pm

    Reblogged this on incipientactivist.


    • angelforisrael 2013-09-30 at 9:53 pm

      Thank you for the reblog. 🙂


Feel free to leave a comment...

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: