that under “the commonsense canon of noscitur a sociis”— that ambiguous terms can be defined more precisely by looking to neighboring words (such as in a list) — the Supreme Court should imply a cruelty requirement onto the acts. 559 U.S. at 474, 130 S.Ct. 1577. Second, the United States urged the Supreme Court to broadly interpret an exception in the statute — for videos with “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value” — to save the constitutionality of the statute. 559 U.S. at 478, 130 S.Ct. 1577. The United States further noted that the language of the exception had been fashioned directly from the Supreme Court’s own exception from “obscenity” in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973) (<HOLDING>). See 559 U.S. at 479, 130 S.Ct. 1577. The
holding that it is not holding that material is not obscene if it has serious literary artistic political or scientific value recognizing value of maintaining integrity of political subdivisions holding that actual controversy requirement not met where prior to exhibition distribution or any threat of prosecution the plaintiff sought a declaration that a film was not obscene and that it would not be subject to prosecution if it exhibited or distributed it holding that a retained equity interest is property even if it has no market value