Contrary to the manner in which this oral argument has almost invariably been treated by the press, animal cruelty is not, actually, a hilarious subject. Dahlia is on the creep's side; I'm on the government's side. And suddenly I like Justice Alito a whole lot better.

Nobody said it is. Your thinking is clearly tainted by your visceral reaction to animal cruelty, which is only indirectly the target of this statute. It is a clear violation of the First Amendment, which has no exceptions that would permit banning videos of amorphously-defined "animal cruelty." The legislation simply sucks and has no place in America, although overturning it will have no effect on animal cruelty laws.

But it WILL have an effect on the availability of "crush" videos. The legislature needs to go back and write legislation that is specifically directed at "crush" videos. Such acts are committed for the specific purpose of recording the act and then selling them in interstate commerce. In contrast, dog fights are not stage for the specific purpose of recording the act and then selling them. It is merely incidental. With such a narrowly tailored statute the government would be able to easily do away with any arugment that the "crush" videos have an redeeming 1st Amendment value.

Animal cruelty is already a crime (a felony in 46 states and DC, a lesser crime in the other 5), and you can (and should!) punish those who produce such materials for committing that crime. Deliberately and cruelly killing small animals for entertainment is cruelty, and can be prosecuted as such.

The law at issue was not about whether animal cruelty should be legal, but about a law that criminalized the production and distribution of videos depicting "animal cruelty" (vaguely defined) even where the activities were legal where they took place. Declaring the law unconstitutional does not make it legal to kill small animals for sexual entertainment, conduct dog fights, or torture cats.

Deliberately and cruelly killing small animals for entertainment is cruelty, and can be prosecuted as such.

Part of the problem is that animal cruelty is such a BS concept because it can not be defined. There are plenty of legal activities that some people think is cruel and all they have to do is watch it where it is illegal (coastal Americans vs middle Americans, or N vs S, etc) and anything involving an animal is illegal. Farming, hunting, circus acts, animal shows, rodeos, etc.

The laws scope was too large. PETA members in San Fransisco can ban rodeos declaring it animal cruelty and thus making all rodeo videos (even where rodeos are legal) illegal.

You are an idiot. I don't think there's anything else to add

It is often hard to get a read on individual justices' opinions by reading about or watching oral argument unless you are very experienced watching oral argument. Often, the justices play the devil's advocate. You will see the same justice go after each side on the same case, whereas if you had only seen the justice question on side, you would believe that the justice was not favorable to that position.

tinkerbelle:

..... Dahlia is on the creep's side; I'm on the government's side. And suddenly I like Justice Alito a whole lot better.

Since when has the defense of free speech become the job of the "creep's side"