I disagree. I think Lithwick's "Supreme Court Dispatches" are consistently the best reads on the site. She recognizes the theater that is the oral argument of the Supreme Court, and she brings it to life. The notion that oral arguments at the Supreme Court must be solemn and dry simply perpetuates the stereotype that debating the nation's most fundamental principles is boring, rather than lively, exciting, and yes entertaining. Your argument would hold merit if, in pursuit of entertainment, Lithwick failed to present a coherent picture of the arguments presented or the issue at hand. I have rarely found that to be the case. In fact, I usually learn more about the arguments made and the personalities of the justices from her articles than from staid, "factual" articles in the Post or Times.

I find it a little jarring that you want a facts only, rationally argued piece when your own opinion on the case is governed by your own personal visceral, emotional reaction to the material being expressed. If you do not like the "nasty side of our culture's 'I can say what I want' mentality," I would suggest you start a movement to repeal the first amendment.

The crime in "Crush videos" is the animal cruelty itself, not the depiction of it. We already have laws against the cruelty itself that in no way violate first amendment principles or places the government in the position of judging the content and purpose of any video showing actual animal cruelty.