Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf
Page Number: 36

12 

UNITED STATES v. STEVENS 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

the State statute of limitations.”  H. R. Rep., at 3; see also 
145 Cong. Rec. 25896 (Rep. Gallegly) (“[I]t is the prosecu-
tors from around this country, Federal prosecutors as well 
as  State  prosecutors,  that  have  made  an  appeal  to  us  for 
this”); Hearing on Depictions of Animal Cruelty 21 (“If the
production of the video is not discovered during the actual 
filming,  then  prosecution  for  the  offense  is  virtually  im-
possible without a cooperative eyewitness to the filming or
an undercover police operation”); id., at 34–35 (discussing
example of case in which state prosecutor “had the defen-
dant  telling  us  he  produced  these  videos,”  but  where 
prosecution  was  not  possible  because  the  State  could  not 
prove where or when the tape was made).

In light of the practical problems thwarting the prosecu-
tion  of  the  creators  of  crush  videos  under  state  animal 
cruelty  laws,  Congress  concluded  that  the  only  effective
way  of  stopping  the  underlying  criminal  conduct  was  to
prohibit  the  commercial  exploitation  of  the  videos  of  that
conduct.  And  Congress’  strategy  appears  to  have  been 
vindicated.    We  are  told  that  “[b]y  2007,  sponsors  of  §48
declared  the  crush  video  industry  dead.    Even  overseas 
Websites  shut  down  in  the  wake  of  §48.    Now,  after  the 
Third Circuit’s decision [facially invalidating the statute], 
crush  videos  are  already  back  online.”    Humane  Society
Brief 5 (citations omitted). 

2 
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it 
most  certainly  does  not  protect  violent  criminal  conduct,
even  if  engaged  in  for  expressive  purposes.  Crush  videos 
present  a  highly  unusual  free  speech  issue  because  they 
are  so  closely  linked  with  violent  criminal  conduct.    The 
videos record the commission of violent criminal acts, and 
it  appears  that  these  crimes  are  committed  for  the  sole 
purpose  of  creating  the  videos.    In  addition,  as  noted 
above,  Congress  was  presented  with  compelling  evidence