§ 48,[1] a federal statute criminalizing the commercial production, sale, or possession of depictions of cruelty to animals, was an unconstitutional abridgment of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

The language tracked the "Miller test," used by the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether speech could be prosecuted for obscenity or was protected by the First Amendment.

The third tape depicted a pit bull attacking a domestic pig as part of the dog being trained to catch and kill wild hog and included "a gruesome depiction of a pit bull attacking the lower jaw of a domestic farm pig.

"[5] Stevens filed a motion to dismiss the indictment by arguing that the federal statute abridged his right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

[9] Stevens' attorney, Washington, D.C., lawyer Patricia Millett, has written: The notion that Congress can suddenly strip a broad swath of never-before-regulated speech of First Amendment protection and send its creators to federal prison, based on nothing more than an ad hoc balancing of the 'expressive value' of the speech against its 'societal costs' is entirely alien to constitutional jurisprudence and a dangerous threat to liberty.

The Court there held that child pornography is not protected speech, and I believe that Ferber's reasoning dictates a similar conclusion here.

"[15] On April 21, one day after the Supreme Court struck down the law, its original sponsor, Representative Elton Gallegly (R-CA) introduced a new bill with much more specific language, indicating it was intended only to apply to "crush videos.