If life gives you Melons you probably have dyslexia.
So you are happy to let the legislatures pass laws very broadly because the judges, who in most cases have no accountablility to the electorate, will set the limits. Like I said, you seem to have a lot of faith in five old white men.B. Already codified in law (by the legislators) they can't make stuff up as they go along.
The SCOTUS was right to strike this down because it is too broad.
This is another one of those issues that doesn't have a way to clearly define what a law should cover. I'm all for hunting for food but against sport hunting. As others have mentioned, there are a lot of images depicting the death of animals which shouldn't be banned while cruelty for pleasure should be however, who gets to decide? Someone could always claim their video of dogfighting is for exposing the cruelty to the public while the reality is that it is filmed for pleasure...
"Crushing" videos? Sheesh we humans are sick ****ers... the problem however is that it doesn't seem any more cruel that sport hunting. The goal is killing the animal for pleasure, both of them.
Not only was the law overly broad, it was a stupid approach in the first place because it tries to address the symptom (videos) instead of the problem (animal cruelty). The videos are not the problem. Go after the low-life pond scum who are actually being cruel in the videos instead.