Dogfighting Videos Create Free Speech Battle at the Supreme Court

       While searching the news, I found two articles, from CNN and The New York Times, about a case (U.S. vs. Stevens) the Supreme Court discussed this afternoon. The Supreme Court is debating whether or not Mr. Robert J. Stevens should be prosecuted for producing videos glorifying dogfighting. Dogfighting itself is a felony in 48 states, but Mr. Stevens would be prosecuted under a highly controversial statute written in 1999 . The statue says that a person could receive up to 5 years in prison for sharing or making profit from videos with animal cruelty. This case has become a battle between free speech activists and animal rights activists, and the Supreme Court itself appears divided. Do you think Mr. Stevens should be prosecuted for creating these videos?
      It's a sticky situation; I believe that making films glorifying dogfighting is horrifying, but as an American he has the right to free speech. If it was possible to find evidence that he participated in the dogfighting itself, and prosecute him for that, it would be a no brainer. CNN pointed out that under this statute, videos with clips of dogfighting meant to deter the animal abuse could also be prosecuted. If he gets prosecuted, it would be the first time someone would not be protected by the first amendment for making media of nonsexual violence.
      I do not think videos of this nature should be condoned. According to the New York Times, the veterinarian that testified said that the videos "depicted terrible suffering" to animals. Should Americans be allowed to show videos of animals being maimed and tortured?
      However, I think that although the first amendment is a double edged sword, it is one of our most important rights as Americans. America was founded on the principle of allowing all to represent themselves and be free- the right to say whatever we want and the right to believe whatever we want are crucial in upholding that American ideal.
      What does the aforementioned statue say about Americans? To me, the fact that we have to make a law contradicting one of our most valued laws means that there are obsene amounts of videos out there depicting animal torture.To put it bluntly, that is sick.  Maybe watching these films is a way to get out violent tendencies without actually acting on them, but I'm still struggling to see this issue in an ubiased way. Additionally, I think that this law is not just a reflection of Americans, but the world. What do you think?
     One final question; as a whole, should exceptions be made for our first amendment?