Supremes Uphold Free Speech Even If it's Disturbing

If you believe the First Amendment means what it says I think you'll have to agree with this ruling:

The Supreme Court struck down a federal law Tuesday aimed at banning videos depicting graphic violence against animals, saying that it violates the constitutional right to free speech.

Chief Justice John J. Roberts Jr., writing for an eight-member majority, said the law was overly broad and not allowed by the First Amendment. He rejected the government's argument that whether certain categories of speech deserve constitutional protection depends on balancing the value of the speech against its societal costs.

"The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits," Roberts wrote. "The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it."

The law was enacted in 1999 to forbid sales of so-called crush videos, which appeal to a certain sexual fetish by depicting the torture of animals or showing them being crushed to death by women with stiletto heels or their bare feet. But the government has not prosecuted such a case. Instead, the case before the court, United States v. Stevens, came from Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Va., who was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison for videos he made about pit bull fighting.

Roberts said the federal law was so broadly written that it could include all depictions of killing animals, even hunting videos. He said the court was not passing judgment about whether "a statute limited to crush videos or other depictions of extreme animal cruelty would be constitutional."

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. was the lone dissenter.

"The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it most certainly does not protect violent criminal conduct, even if engaged in for expressive purposes," Alito wrote.

Nobody (or at least almost nobody) is in favor of videotaping cruelty to animals, but the founders gave us a First Amendment that was broad enough to include both politically correct and incorrect speech, and along with the good will come some bad. This is not to say that reasonable restrictions can be applied, but not via broad over-reaching laws which are often an emotional reaction to a problem rather than a logical one.

And I'll bet more than a few folks are surprised that Sam Alito dissented.  After all, he was the poster boy for lefty ire after he shook his head at Obama during the State of the Union speech.