So it looks like stepping-on-a-kitten porn is illegal

Here's an interesting story about the intersection between animal cruelty and free speech (that intersection is, in fact, pornography. yeah, ew). Here's the gist:

"...In 1999, Congress made it a crime to sell “crush videos” and almost all other depictions of unlawful cruelty to animals.

The conduct itself is disgusting, of course. But the law does not criminalize the cruelty, which was already illegal in all 50 states, only its depiction. By making such expressions illegal — adding a new category of speech to the very few that are entirely unprotected under the First Amendment — the law raised profound constitutional questions about whether and when the government can decide that some sorts of information have no social value at all...

...The law does contain an exception for materials of “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value.” But Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment specialist at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the exception was small comfort. “What constitutes serious value,” Professor Volokh said, “is very much in the eye of the beholder.”"

Gotta agree with Volokh, whose name sounds like Harry Potter character's to me, on this one. And making it a crime to sell videos depicting illegal acts sounds like a very slippery slope.

Also, the article ends with, "[the chief counsel of the Human Society] provided a reporter with links to two examples, one involving a kitten, the other a puppy. May you never see them." Ew.

Fairness Doctrine

A little anti-climactic here ... I just read an article or two about it (one was in the LA Times) and it seems this is largely the right wing presenting a straw man in which they try to scare their audience with these terrible things the Democrats will do that they really don't seem too interested in (although the LAT article did say Chuck Schumer was for it - eww.)