What kind of crap is this? What's with the weird imagery, the Hong Kong kung-fu gimmicky nature of this silly article? What, the issue isn't interesting enough without all that childish flailing about?

I would have appreciated a factual article on this case, which has far-reaching implications. I don't see any reason for these linguistic shenanigans. Was the writer bored? What was it about the case that made it seem like it needed a bunch of action film jumping about? Seems more like a sop to ADD and snarkiness than any kind of try at communicating the facts.

It's too bad, because the case underscores a nasty side to our culture's "I can say what I want" mentality. The idea of defending such horrible practices just because "some people like them" is disgusting, not to put too fine a point on it. It's one thing to fake mayhem in the movies; it's quite another to get off on a living creature's torture and death. Defending such trash in court only legitimizes what should be viewed with contempt and horror by any civilized culture.

But unfortunately, it was hard to keep my mind on the issue with all that Saturday morning cartoon craziness. Please, next time try to take your subject a little more seriously. At least more seriously than the justices seem to have taken it. (Then again, maybe they did take it very seriously. Who the hell can tell?)

This has nothing to do with whether dog fighting should be defended. Nothing in this statute has anything to do with whether or not dog fighting bans and penalties should exist and whether or not those involved in facilitating dog fighting should be prosecuted or not.

The reason for Dhalia's flippancy and snark is that this is an extremely obvious First Amendment case. There are mountains upon mountains of case law supporting videos of dog fighting (or hate-speech, or neo-Nazis, or strange sex fetishes) as protected speech under the First Amendment.

Dog fighting is disgusting and horrid is not a legal argument for why people cannot purchase and distribute videos of it.

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.

Lithwick was pointing out that we show animal cruelty videos all the time, but the ones showing animals suffering and dying in the wild (through animal attacks or hunting by humans) are legal and a poorly defined set of other ones are not.

I tend to turn off any video showing a suffering animal, but it looks like the right penalties for animal video makers may be social, not legal.

Serai:

But unfortunately, it was hard to keep my mind on the issue with all that Saturday morning cartoon craziness. Please, next time try to take your subject a little more seriously. At least more seriously than the justices seem to have taken it. (Then again, maybe they did take it very seriously. Who the hell can tell?)

On the contrary, I thought Dahlia's reporting was spot on as usual. She dispenses with the usual pointless legalese surrounding all the Supreme Court cases, and just present us the most important back-and-forth deliberations. We get to see the Supremes in action. Frankly they are not much better than a pack of sophomores arguing in a dorm room. We wouldn't know this if it wasn't for Dahlia's reporting.

The biggest problem with the supreme court justices is that they take themselves too seriously. Dahlia, if she is doing her job, should be doing her utmost to cut them down to size by not taking them seriously.

If showing videos of animal cruelty isn't illegal than I don't see how videos of child porn can be illegal, only the act itself. And yet, anything even remotely suggesting a sexual nature with children, except for child pageants for some reason, is treated like the plague.

From a legal standpoint there shouldn't be any difference. I'm not even definding or condemning child porn either way, but from a First Amendment point of view they're both the same issue.