From the a New York Times story comes this question: Does the First Amendment limit the government's ability to make the depiction of illegal conduct also illegal? Cockfighting is illegal in 49 states (thank God for Louisiana) but not Puerto Rico, but thanks to the internet you can watch it live.
The law was signed by President Clinton and was specifically tailored to depictions that appealed "to a prurient interest in sex." This put the law under the purview of obscenity laws, which are constitutional. But the broad language has led to its use to generally to deal with any depiction of animal cruelty. Lawyers suggest that the law could be used to prosecute hunting and fishing tapes and the law could also be used to prosecute a television station that shows a video of people breaking into a convenience store--that's illegal conduct also.
It could also suppress democratic debate. Says a law professor: "When you punish speech, you quell debate about matters of public controversy."
There is no First Amendment precedence for this type of law. It can go anywhere. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has the case at the moment, but its a good bet to end up in the Supreme Court.
