(Thumbnail image: Care2)

By an 8-to-1 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down a law meant to crack down on videos depicting animal cruelty. The High Court says the law was potentially dangerous to free speech.

NBC Nightly News' Brian Williams explains how the case made it to the hands of the Supreme Court justices.

"A Virginia man sold videos of pitbulls in violent dogfights. They were made overseas he said, where dogfighting is legal. He was arrested and sentenced to three years in prison under a federal law that banned depictions of animal cruelty. But by a vote of 8-to-1 the Supreme Court struck down that law saying it was so broad it violated the Constitution's guarantee of free expression."

The Straits Times says the law failed to pass the tough test most First Amendment cases must pass.

"The justices said the depiction of animal cruelty failed to fall into one of the 'few limited areas' where free speech can be curtailed by the government, including 'obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, (and) speech integral to criminal conduct.'"

While free speech advocates hailed the ruling, analysts overseas like BBC's Mark Mardell reported it this way.

"Hear that dog yelping in agony? That's a cry of freedom! So the U.S. Supreme Court has decided, ruling that a law aimed at banning videos of animal cruelty is an infringement of the First Amendment, freedom of speech.  Have they got the balance right here?"

Chief Justice John Roberts himself wrote the majority opinion. Justice Sam Alito being the lone dissenter.

On PBS Newshour, Marsha Coyle of the National Law Journal explains the reasoning behind the High Court's verdict.

"He rejected the govenrment's argument that the courts should create a new category of unprotected speech. ... He said there was a long tradition in American law of prohibiting animal cruelty, but there was not a long tradition prohibiting depictions of animal cruelty. And he rejected the government's test for whether this was protected by the First Amendment. He said its test, which would require the courts to balance the value of the speech versus the cost to society, was free-floating and dangerous."

While PETA said it is disappointed in the ruling, it notes Congress is already working on a more narrow law it expects to pass legal muster.

"And lest anyone out there who takes pleasure in others' pain is rejoicing, please take note: Abusing animals or inciting others to do so is still illegal and will result in jail time."

So what do you think?  Was this a victory for free speech?  Or a defeat for animal rights?