I suspect there won't be a lot of disagreement among the forum about this decision, but there is an interesting wrinkle to the legal opinion that I think merits some discussion. First the news: So freedom of speech wins a victory. Nothing terribly surprising there, outside of Alito as the lone dissent on an issue where the gun lobby has an interest. But here's the twist -- and Digby sums it up quite succintly, so I'll let her lay it out better than I could: That was exactly what struck me as I read about the decision earlier today. The intellectual inconsistency applied by the court in this kind of thorny situation is troubling to me. Either images of abuse are intrinsically related to the underlying abuse, or they aren't. The subject of the abuse should be irrelevant. Personally I would fall on the side that says they are intrinsically related, and that child pornography and crush videos are not protected speech; but still find this law to be overly broad because the way it's written it can be construed to apply to images of a legal activity. Although, not being a legal scholar, I'm not sure if that is an option since the issue in this case was a party producing videos of an illegal activity.