"Absolute"ly "Relative" in interpretation

The Judge Roberts' Supreme Court is handing down powerful judgements. Yesterday, the Court ruled against a law that made it illegal to create or sell videos featuring animal cruelty. As the records show, Justice Roberts uses the absolute notion of First Amendment (no power to restrict) but subsequently argues that child pornography is “a special case” because the market for it is “intrinsically related to the underlying abuse.” Is it because the Christian Right actively protests 'child pornography' but does not protest cruelty to animals?

Supreme Court Rejects Ban on Animal Cruelty Videos - NYTimes.com: "The government argued that depictions showing harm to animals were of such minimal social worth that they should receive no First Amendment protection at all. Chief Justice Roberts roundly rejected that assertion. “The First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter or its content,” he wrote.

The chief justice acknowledged that some kinds of speech — including obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement and speech integral to criminal conduct — have historically been granted no constitutional protection. But he said the Supreme Court had no “freewheeling authority to declare new categories of speech outside the scope of the First Amendment.”"