The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal law last month banning the sale of graphic animal videos, a law authored by U.S. Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Thousand Oaks) more than 10 years ago.

U.S. Rep. Elton Gallegely In its U.S. v. Stevens ruling, the Supreme Court said the Depiction of Animal Cruelty Act was “overbroad,” and it overturned the conviction of Robert Stevens, who was caught selling “crush” videos.

“Crush” videos involve the intentional crushing and impaling of kittens, puppies and other small animals, often by women in high heels. The films are sold to viewers who find the violence arousing.

The court acknowledged the importance of animal protection but said the 1999 law could include speech or images protected by the First Amendment.

On April 21, one day after the decision, Gallegly and 56 other representatives introduced H.R. 5092, a bipartisan piece of legislation that would provide additional funding for law enforcement to track down traffickers of “crush” videos.

“Violence is not a First Amendment issue; it is a law enforcement issue,” Gallegly said. “Ted Bundy and Ted Kaczynski tortured or killed animals before killing people. The FBI, U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Justice consider animal cruelty to be one of the early warning signs of potential violence by youths. This bill is one step toward ending this cycle of violence.”

The new bill targets “crush” videos specifically, as well as video depictions of drowning or burning of animals.

Before the Depiction of Animal Cruelty Act was enacted, about 3,000 “crush” videos were available in the marketplace, selling for up to $300 each, according to the Humane Society of the United States.

That market diminished soon after the law was passed but has made a comeback since a federal appellate court declared the law unconstitutional in July 2008, said Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society.

“Congress should act quickly to enact this legislation to prevent some of the most extreme forms of animal cruelty I have ever seen,” Pacelle said. “Anyone who has seen the clips of women in high heels literally crushing small animals will understand the urgency in passing a bill to prevent the sale of these vile images.”

Gallegly’s original bill passed the House in 1999 on a bipartisan vote of 372-42 and in the Senate by unanimous consent. President Bill Clinton signed it into law.

After last month’s decision, Gallegly said he was “disappointed.”

“While I respect the court’s decision, I do not believe justice is served when human beings are allowed to violently abuse animals,” said Gallegly, who’s also co-chair of the Animal Protection Caucus.

“You are not allowed to cry ‘fire’ in a theater. You are not allowed to possess or distribute child pornography. You shouldn’t be able to create and distribute videos that glorify the senseless killing of defenseless animals.”