Does irreparable harm appy to animals?

I found an article published earlier this year by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press web site that I thought was interesting because it seems to debate the weight of First Amendment rights versus animal rights.

The case stems from U.S. v. Stevens which concerns a law passed in 1999 where defendants could face up to five years in jail if they "knowingly creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain." The law was passed with the intention of banning fetish films known as "crush videos" where women in heels step on small animals. No one has been prosecuted under this law until recently when Robert Stevens was charged for distributing videos of animal fighting. Stevens was sentenced however the U.S. Court of Appeals in Philly cited the law as unconstitutional and is "unwilling to find the tapes entirely unprotected by the First Amendment without guidance from the high court."

The Supreme Court has agreed to review the case and in turn decide if the statute violates First Amendment rights. If the statute is upheld, opposition suggests that, not only will this limit the rights of free speech, it will also be detrimental to the fight for proper treatment of animals. It will limit the media's ability to make public the abuse that is happening and cover common popular sporting such as hunting and fishing.

My question is related to irreparable harm. In class we discussed how one must prove irreparable harm to limit speech before it happens. To whom is the irreparable harm occurring in this case? Although I do feel it is sad that animals are mistreated, I do not believe our government was designed to protect animals at the expense of the rights it promised to its people. Is the content disgusting? Yes. But I do not agree that its suppression outweighs the importance of freedom of expression.

View the article.