Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf
Page Number: 25

Cite as:  559 U. S. ____ (2010) 

1 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 08–769 
_________________ 

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. ROBERT J. 

STEVENS 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

[April 20, 2010] 

JUSTICE ALITO, dissenting. 
The  Court  strikes  down  in  its  entirety  a  valuable  stat-
ute,  18  U. S. C.  §48,  that  was  enacted  not  to  suppress 
speech,  but  to  prevent  horrific  acts  of  animal  cruelty—in 
particular,  the  creation  and  commercial  exploitation  of
“crush videos,” a form of depraved entertainment that has 
no  social  value.  The  Court’s  approach,  which  has  the
practical effect of legalizing the sale of such videos and is 
thus  likely  to  spur  a  resumption  of  their  production,  is 
unwarranted.    Respondent  was  convicted  under  §48  for 
selling  videos  depicting  dogfights.    On  appeal,  he  argued,
among  other  things,  that  §48  is  unconstitutional  as  ap-
plied to the facts of this case, and he highlighted features
of  those  videos  that  might  distinguish  them  from  other
dogfight  videos  brought  to  our  attention.1    The  Court  of 

—————— 

1 Respondent  argued  at  length  that  the  evidence  was  insufficient  to 
prove  that  the  particular  videos  he  sold  lacked  any  serious  scientific, 
educational,  or  historical  value  and  thus  fell  outside  the  exception  in 
§48(b).  See  Brief  for  Appellant  in  No.  05–2497  (CA3),  pp. 72–79.    He 
added that, if the evidence in this case was held to be sufficient to take 
his  videos  outside  the  scope  of  the  exception,  then  “this  case  presents 
. . . a situation” in which “a constitutional violation occurs.”  Id., at 71. 
See also id., at 47 (“The applicability of 18 U. S. C. §48 to speech which
is  not  a  crush  video  or  an  appeal  to  some  prurient  sexual  interest
constitutes  a  restriction  of  protected  speech,  and  an  unwarranted 
violation  of  the  First  Amendment’s  free  speech  guarantee”);  Brief  for