This should be a no-brainer, as case reviews go. How can it be deemed legal to sell videos depicting graphic animal cruelty in the U.S. when the acts themselves are illegal? Frankly, I'm having a hard time wrapping my little brain cells around the Philadelphia court's 2008 ruling, which said selling videos that depict animal cruelty is "protected free speech." Here's hoping the Supreme Court acts in the best interests of animals.
For the full story, click here.