Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf
Page Number: 11

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

the First Amendment’s protection without any long-settled
tradition of subjecting that speech to regulation.  Instead, 
the  Government  points  to  Congress’s  “ ‘legislative  judg-
ment  that  . . .  depictions  of  animals  being  intentionally 
tortured and killed [are] of such minimal redeeming value
as to render [them] unworthy of First Amendment protec-
tion,’ ” Brief for United States 23 (quoting 533 F. 3d, at 243
(Cowen, J., dissenting)), and asks the Court to uphold the
ban  on  the  same  basis.  The  Government  thus  proposes
that a  claim of categorical exclusion should be considered 
under a simple balancing test: “Whether a given category 
of  speech  enjoys  First  Amendment  protection  depends
upon  a  categorical  balancing  of  the  value  of  the  speech 
against  its  societal  costs.”    Brief  for  United  States  8;  see 
also id., at 12. 

As  a  free-floating  test  for  First  Amendment  coverage,
that  sentence  is  startling  and  dangerous.  The  First 
Amendment’s  guarantee  of  free  speech  does  not  extend 
only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balanc-
ing  of  relative  social  costs  and  benefits.  The  First 
Amendment  itself  reflects  a  judgment  by  the  American
people  that  the  benefits  of  its  restrictions  on  the  Govern-
ment outweigh the costs.  Our Constitution forecloses any
attempt  to  revise  that  judgment  simply  on  the  basis  that
some  speech  is  not  worth  it.  The  Constitution  is  not  a 
document  “prescribing  limits,  and  declaring  that  those 
limits may be passed at pleasure.”  Marbury v. Madison, 1 
Cranch 137, 178 (1803). 

To  be  fair  to  the  Government,  its  view  did  not  emerge
from  a  vacuum.    As  the  Government  correctly  notes,  this 
Court has often described historically unprotected catego-
ries  of  speech  as  being  “ ‘of  such  slight  social  value  as  a 
step  to  truth  that  any  benefit  that  may  be  derived  from
them  is  clearly  outweighed  by  the  social  interest  in  order
and  morality.’ ”    R. A. V.,  supra,  at  383  (quoting  Chap-
linsky,  supra,  at  572).  In  New  York  v.  Ferber,  458  U. S.