erinlefey

I dunno. I read 18 U.S.C. Section 48 (as I am completely with you on not even being able to consider the possibility of the existence of crush videos without feeling deep-down-dirty and nauseous and hopeless for a good couple of hours, so this immediately made me spaz out), and I don't think it's as broad as it's being made out to be. Certainly the blogging about bullfights wouldn't fall under "illegal", since it could be construed as both educational and journalistic. Exceptions are also made for religious, political, scientific, historical and artistic depictions (and The Jerk is certainly art). The conduct being depicted also must be illegal under federal or state law. Perhaps my interpretation is colored by my perspective; I have zero problem with any of the protected depictions, so I'm not the type to use it broadly. But maybe it COULD be. In any case, something will be re-written to deal with the issue of crush videos (and possibly dogfighting videos, which is what the guy in this case was nailed for) specifically.