Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf
Page Number: 40.0

16 

UNITED STATES v. STEVENS 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

proscribing the production of or otherwise combating ‘child 
pornography,’ ”  and  the  Court  declined  to  “second-guess 
[that]  legislative  judgment.”6    458  U. S.,  at  758.    Here, 
likewise,  the  Court  of  Appeals  erred  in  second-guessing
the legislative judgment about the importance of prevent-
ing cruelty to animals. 

Section 48’s ban on trafficking in crush videos also helps 
to  enforce  the  criminal  laws  and  to  ensure  that  criminals 
do not profit from their crimes.  See 145 Cong. Rec. 25897
(Oct. 19, 1999) (Rep. Gallegly) (“The state has an interest 
in enforcing its existing laws.  Right now, the laws are not 
only  being  violated,  but  people  are  making  huge  profits
from  promoting  the  violations”);  id.,  at  10685  (May  24,
1999)  (Rep.  Gallegly)  (explaining  that  he  introduced  the 
House  version  of  the  bill  because  “criminals  should  not 
profit  from  [their]  illegal  acts”).    We  have  already  judged
that taking the profit out of crime is a compelling interest. 
See  Simon  &  Schuster,  Inc.  v.  Members  of  N. Y.  State 
Crime Victims Bd., 502 U. S. 105, 119 (1991).
  In short, Ferber is the case that sheds the most light on 
the constitutionality of Congress’ effort to halt the produc-
tion  of  crush  videos.  Applying  the  principles  set  forth  in 
Ferber, I would hold that crush videos are not protected by
the First Amendment. 

B 
Application  of  the  Ferber  framework  also  supports  the 

—————— 

6 In other cases, we have regarded evidence of a national consensus as 
proof that a particular government interest is compelling.  See Simon & 
Schuster,  Inc.  v.  Members  of  N. Y.  State  Crime  Victims  Bd.,  502  U. S. 
105, 118 (1991) (State’s compelling interest “in ensuring that victims of
crime are compensated by those who harm them” evidenced by fact that
“[e]very  State  has  a  body  of  tort  law  serving  exactly  this  interest”); 
Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 609, 624–625 (1984) (citing
state  laws  prohibiting  discrimination  in  public  accommodations  as 
evidence  of  the  compelling  governmental  interest  in  ensuring  equal
access).