Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf
Page Number: 42

18 

UNITED STATES v. STEVENS 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

who  stage  dogfights  profit  not  just  from  the  sale  of  the 
videos  themselves,  but  from  the  gambling  revenue  they 
take in from the fights; the videos “encourage [such] gam-
bling activity because they allow those reluctant to attend
actual  fights  for  fear  of  prosecution  to  still  bet  on  the 
outcome.”  Ibid.;  accord,  Brief  for  Center  on  the  Admini-
stration  of  Criminal  Law  as  Amicus  Curiae  12  (“Selling
videos of dogfights effectively abets the underlying crimes 
by  providing  a  market  for  dogfighting  while  allowing 
actual  dogfights  to  remain  underground”);  ibid.  (“These
videos  are  part  of  a  ‘lucrative  market’  where  videos  are 
produced  by  a  ‘bare-boned,  clandestine  staff’  in  order  to
permit  the  actual  location  of  dogfights  and  the  perpetra-
tors  of  these  underlying  criminal  activities  to  go  unde-
tected”  (citations  omitted)).    Moreover,  “[v]ideo  documen-
tation  is  vital  to  the  criminal  enterprise  because  it
provides  proof  of  a  dog’s  fighting  prowess—proof  de-
manded  by  potential  buyers  and  critical  to  the  under-
ground  market.”  Humane  Society  Brief  9.    Such  re-
cordings may also serve as “ ‘training’ videos for other fight
organizers.”  Ibid.  In short, because videos depicting live 
dogfights  are  essential  to  the success  of  the  criminal  dog-
fighting  subculture,  the  commercial  sale  of  such  videos
helps  to  fuel  the  market  for,  and  thus  to  perpetuate  the
perpetration of, the criminal conduct depicted in them. 

Third, depictions of dogfights that fall within §48’s reach
have  by  definition  no  appreciable  social  value.    As  noted, 
§48(b)  exempts  depictions  having  any  appreciable  social 
value, and thus the mere inclusion of a depiction of a live
fight in a larger work that aims at communicating an idea
or a message with a modicum of social value would not run
afoul of the statute. 

Finally,  the  harm  caused  by  the  underlying  criminal
acts  greatly  outweighs  any  trifling  value  that  the  depic-
tions might be thought to possess.  As the Humane Society 
explains: