This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: The decision concentrated not on the value of the videos as protected free speech but on the fact that the law was too general because it covers protected and unprotected speech. The Court pointed out that a restricted ban against a specific type of video would be constitutional. The government has a compelling interest in controlling speech if it lessens the fundamental action, which is the hurting and killing of animals. The Court is ruling against a unsatisfactorily composed law. The Court needs to write a new law to make dogfighting and videos against the law. The point of freedom is speech is to defend the content that is a part of the edge of society, which are the things that most people find to be unpleasant or even condemnable by their standards....
View Full Document
- Spring '08