Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay 
Should Depictions of Animal Cruelty Be Protected by the First Amendment?
Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. § 48, which criminalizes commercial creation, sale, or possession of a visual or auditory depiction in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed, if that conduct violates federal or state law where the creation, sale, or possession takes place. In United States v. Stevens, 552 U.S. 442 (2010), the US Supreme Court held that this statute is facially overbroad and violative of the First Amendment. Specifically, the Court held that depictions of animal cruelty are entitled to First Amendment protection, and the statute is presumptively invalid because it is content based. In addition, the Court stated that the government’s interest in censoring this type of material is not compelling enough to outweigh the prohibition on protected speech and that the statute on its face included material that may have redeemed social value. The Court’s opinion is available at this link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-769.ZO.htmlLinks to an external site.
1. Do you think the First Amendment should protect material depicting animal cruelty? Why or why not?
2. What are some possible consequences of criminalizing this type of speech?
