[Newsweek - opinion]

But are depictions of animal cruelty the legal equivalent of child
pornography? The Supreme Court will decide.
...
Kittens, brutality, fetish videos, and dogfighting—these aren't the
elements of a twisted cable-television show; they're just some of the
factors in one of Tuesday's U.S. Supreme Court cases that will kick
off the court’s new term. The court will hear the federal government's
appeal of U.S. v. Stevens, a circuit court's overturning of a 1999
federal law that makes it a crime to create, sell, or possess
depictions of animal cruelty for commercial gain. If the court
reverses the lower court's decision and reinstates the law, images
showing the intentional torture or killing of animals would be deemed
illegal. But technically, so might depictions of bullfighting in Spain
or fishing and hunting out of season.

Sexual-fetish videos called “crush videos” became an Internet craze in
the late 1990s, picturing women in their bare feet or high heels
crushing to death small animals such as mice or kittens. Congress
passed a law in 1999 to outlaw the production of the videos, and
distribution of them came to a halt. Though the law has been in effect
for years, no one was ever prosecuted for producing a crush video.
Instead, in 2004, a Virginia man was the first person to be indicted
under the law for selling what he claims is an educational film.

--
full story:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/216740