The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from infringing on our freedom of speech. Americans are proud of this powerful statement, yet this week we are faced with the challenge of ensuring that our concept of free expression really does promote justice.

As it stands, depiction of illegal acts in film, as a form of personal expression, is perfectly legal, protected under the First Amendment.

In 1999 however, Congress made an exception to this rule. A law was passed that prohibited the depiction of cruelty to animals for commercial gain. This law originally addressed “crush videos,” or sexual fetish films in circulation that showed women’s high heels crushing small animals.

Under this law, Robert J. Stevens of Virginia was sentenced to 37 months in prison for selling videos of dog fighting, a form of cruelty to animals that is illegal in all 50 states.

However, last summer, a U.S. Court of Appeals overturned Stevens’s sentence, stating that the law prohibiting depiction of animal cruelty is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment right of free expression. President Barack Obama’s administration has appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard the case this past week. The case has sparked much controversy and became, in a sense, a battle between free speech and animal rights.

Free speech should not be limited without serious justification, but overturning the prohibition on animal cruelty videos has terrible implications. By doing so, we are saying yes, animal cruelty is illegal, but since there is about a zero percent chance that we’ll be able to identify the actual perpetrator, and meanwhile, you can make money off your video, you have every reason to support cruelty to animals.

So, legalizing the depiction of animal cruelty undermines any efforts to protect animals from harm. And lo and behold, the Humane Society reports that since the overturned sentence, there has been an upsurge in online crush videos.

You might ask, what about the First Amendment? Can we justify limiting one of our very basic constitutional rights?

Yes. If freedom of expression can be used to promote animal cruelty, then it must be limited. Exceptions must be recognized. In fact, in the past, Congress has made another exception to the freedom of expression rule: child pornography. Since a child cannot give his or her consent to the shame and negative psychological effects he or she may suffer later, it is an illegal depiction.

If our interpretation of our rights allows us to act unjustly, then we simply do not understand what the fathers of our Constitution intended.

The First Amendment guarantees our rights, but it is not meant to protect us while we inflict harm on others. None of our rights are absolute, and it is up to the Supreme Court to interpret the First Amendment in a way that preserves justice.

Therefore, the Supreme Court should reinstate the law that prohibits the depiction of animal cruelty, in the interest of justice for living creatures.

Reach Hannah at hannah.wasserman@asu.edu.