Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf
Page Number: 38.0

14 

UNITED STATES v. STEVENS 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

was  unjustified  in  believing  that  it  is  difficult,  if  not 
impossible, to halt the exploitation of children by pur-
suing  only  those  who  produce  the  photographs  and 
movies. . . . The most expeditious if not the only prac-
tical method of law enforcement may be to dry up the
market  for  this  material  by  imposing  severe  criminal 
penalties on persons selling, advertising, or otherwise
promoting the product.”  Id., at 759–760. 

See  also  id.,  at  761  (“The  advertising  and  selling  of  child 
pornography provide an economic motive for and are thus
an integral part of the production of such materials”). 
  Third,  the  Ferber  Court  noted  that  the  value  of  child 
pornography  “is  exceedingly  modest,  if  not  de  minimis,” 
and  that  any  such  value  was  “overwhelmingly  out-
weigh[ed]” by “the evil to be restricted.”  Id., at 762–763. 

All  three  of  these  characteristics  are  shared  by  §48,  as 
applied  to  crush  videos.  First,  the  conduct  depicted  in
crush videos is criminal in every State and the District of
Columbia.    Thus,  any  crush  video  made  in  this  country
records  the  actual  commission  of  a  criminal  act  that  in-
flicts  severe  physical  injury  and  excruciating  pain  and 
ultimately results in death.  Those who record the under-
lying  criminal  acts  are  likely  to  be  criminally  culpable, 
either  as  aiders  and  abettors  or  conspirators.    And  in  the 
tight and secretive market for these videos, some who sell 
the videos or possess them with the intent to make a profit
may  be  similarly  culpable.    (For  example,  in  some  cases,
crush videos were commissioned by purchasers who speci-
fied  the  details  of  the  acts  that  they  wanted  to  see  per-
formed.  See  H. R.  Rep.,  at  3;  Hearing  on  Depictions  of 
Animal Cruelty 27).  To the extent that §48 reaches such
persons, it surely does not violate the First Amendment. 

Second, the criminal acts shown in crush videos cannot 
be  prevented  without  targeting  the  conduct  prohibited  by 
§48—the  creation,  sale,  and  possession  for  sale  of  depic-