This is beyond fucked up.

I don't see why the 1st Amendment should be brought into this at all. It doesn't have anything to do with speech. Animal cruelty is a crime in every state, afaik, so they should be able to ban these films on that basis alone, but I'm no lawyer, it just seems logical. I mean, child porn and snuff films are illegal and I guess that someone could, and probably has, made the free speech argument there, but they are still illegal.

And the law was supposedly deemed unconstitutional because it was too vague, but I looked up the law, and this is what it says:

§ 48. Depiction of animal cruelty

(a) Creation, Sale, or Possession.— Whoever knowingly creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) Exception.— Subsection (a) does not apply to any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.
(c) Definitions.— In this section—
(1) the term “depiction of animal cruelty” means any visual or auditory depiction, including any photograph, motion-picture film, video recording, electronic image, or sound recording of conduct in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed, if such conduct is illegal under Federal law or the law of the State in which the creation, sale, or possession takes place, regardless of whether the maiming, mutilation, torture, wounding, or killing took place in the State; and
(2) the term “State” means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

I don't see how the SCOTUS could consider that language vague.