Lower Court Holding
Decision of the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
The government does not allege that Stevens participated in the interstate transport of "crush videos." Nor does the government allege that the videos Stevens sold contained prurient material. The government also concedes that Section 48 constitutes a content-based restriction on speech. Nonetheless, the government argues that the type of speech regulated by Section 48 falls outside First Amendment protection. By doing so, the government asks us to create a new category of unprotected speech. The acts of animal cruelty that form the predicate for Section 48 are reprehensible, and indeed warrant strong legal sanctions. The government is correct in arguing…
