Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf
Page Number: 39.0

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

15 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

tions  of  animal  torture  with  the  intention  of  realizing  a
commercial  profit.  The  evidence  presented  to  Congress 
posed a stark choice: Either ban the commercial exploita-
tion of crush videos or tolerate a continuation of the crimi-
nal acts that they record.  Faced with this evidence, Con-
gress reasonably chose to target the lucrative crush video
market. 

Finally,  the  harm  caused  by  the  underlying  crimes
vastly  outweighs  any  minimal  value  that  the  depictions
might  conceivably  be  thought  to  possess.  Section  48 
reaches only the actual recording of acts of animal torture;
the  statute  does  not  apply  to  verbal  descriptions  or  to 
simulations.  And, unlike the child pornography statute in 
Ferber or its federal counterpart, 18 U. S. C. §2252, §48(b) 
provides  an  exception  for  depictions  having  any  “serious 
religious,  political,  scientific,  educational,  journalistic,
historical, or artistic value.” 

It  must  be  acknowledged  that  §48  differs  from  a  child 
pornography  law  in  an  important  respect:  preventing  the
abuse  of  children  is  certainly  much  more  important  than
preventing the torture of the animals used in crush videos. 
It  was  largely  for  this  reason  that  the  Court  of  Appeals
concluded that Ferber did not support the constitutionality
of §48.  533 F. 3d, at 228 (“Preventing cruelty to animals, 
although  an  exceedingly  worthy  goal,  simply  does  not 
implicate  interests  of  the  same  magnitude  as  protecting 
children  from  physical  and  psychological  harm”).    But 
while  protecting  children  is  unquestionably  more  impor-
tant  than  protecting  animals,  the  Government  also  has  a 
compelling  interest  in  preventing  the  torture  depicted  in
crush videos. 

The  animals  used  in  crush  videos  are  living  creatures
that  experience  excruciating  pain.    Our  society  has  long
banned such cruelty, which is illegal throughout the coun-
try.  In  Ferber,  the  Court  noted  that  “virtually  all  of  the
States  and  the  United  States  have  passed  legislation