Tuesday was, if we had to guess, probably one of the top three days ever for people who get their sexual kicks from watching videos of baby animals being crushed to death by women in heels (the other two were the days that the Internet and the Fleshlight were invented, respectively). In 1999, in an effort to stem the practices of dog fighting and what are known as "crush videos," Congress passed a law barring the trafficking of videos "in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed.” But the Supreme Court has now ruled that the right to free speech can't be infringed upon for such purposes. In an 8-1 decision in which, surprisingly, Samuel Alito was the lone dissenter Chief Justice John Roberts explained:
The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it.
Apparently, killing small animals so weirdos can get off is what the founders envisioned when they wrote the Bill of Rights. But the "crush video" industry can't sleep soundly just yet. Another factor in the decision was that the law was written too broadly, even potentially encompassing hunting videos under certain interpretations. Roberts suggested that a "more focused law 'limited to crush videos and other depictions of extreme animal cruelty' might survive First Amendment scrutiny." Better get as much sick perverted masturbation in while you can, pale basement dwellers. The clock is ticking!