Videos of Small Animals Being Crushed by Women in High Heels Are Protected Free Speech?

I thought life could only get better with President Obama in office. Unfortunately, too many Democrats had previously voted for four of the most souless candidates ever to sit on the Supreme Court. Making videos of extreme animal cruelty is considered "free speech" instead of putting or leaving the perpetrators in jail. Story at Alternet:

The Supreme Court's 8-1 ruling comes down to protecting the depiction of a gruesome act on 1st Amendment grounds, not the legality of the gruesome act itself.
This week the Supreme Court handed down an eight to one ruling that, depending on your priorities, either reflects its total, unwavering belief in the primacy of the First Amendment, or else proves once and for all that the justices have no soul -- except for maybe Samuel Alito.
Free Speech Trumps Animal Rights
It has been almost 30 years since the Court declared a specific exception to the First Amendment. Among the ones that do exist are obscenity, defamation and fraud; in 1982 the Court also ruled that child pornography is not protected speech, a decision it upheld in 2008.
In his lonely 20-page dissent, Justice Alito drew a parallel between the sale of child pornography and the sale of crush videos, arguing that while the First Amendment protects free speech, "it most certainly does not protect violent criminal conduct, even if engaged in for expressive purposes."
"Crush videos present a highly unusual free speech issue because they are so closely linked with violent criminal conduct," he wrote. "The videos record the commission of violent criminal acts, and it appears that these crimes are committed for the sole purpose of creating the videos."
The decision by the Court, Alito warned, "has the practical effect of legalizing the sale of such videos and is thus likely to spur a resumption of their production."