Home Based Dog Training

I.                    Is the Federal Animal Cruelty Law broad enough to allow Congress to ban commercial sale of dog-fighting videos

a.       Distribution of dog fighting videos encourages the production of additional items

                                                                           i.      Encourages people to raise dogs for fighting

                                                                         ii.      Allowance of images promotes idea that dog fighting is acceptable

b.      Is the law constitutionally vague?

                                                                           i.      The law arose in an effort to ban “crush” videos but encompasses other forms of animal cruelty

1.       Is the law narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest? 

a.       Is the ban of “crush” videos used as a form of sexual fetish a compelling interest?

                                                                                                                                                   i.      The government has an interest in protecting the public health

                                                                                                                                                 ii.      Does the law impinge upon the First Amendment right to freedom of speech

1.       First Amendment right to freedom of speech is not absolute

a.       The US Supreme Court has found some videos to unprotected by the First Amendment

b.      City of San Diego v. Roe found a government employee did not have right to distribute pornographic videos which included images similar in appearance to a police uniform.   The Supreme Court held that a public employee may be subject to certain restraints

2.       US Court of Appeals for 3^rd Circuit equated with child pornography and found unconstitutional

a.       Protections against animal cruelty have been supported by the Constitution

b.      Dog fighting is considered “obscene” material and should not receive heightened scrutiny protection

c.       Violent images should be considered in the same manner as certain pornographic materials

d.      Do animal cruelty videos meet the public concern test

                                                                                                                                                   i.      The court recognized the right of public employees to speak on matters of public concern.    However, even if it is not public concern, the speech may be protected under the First Amendment

                                                                                                                                                 ii.      The government has an interest in reducing crime

1.       Dog-fighting may be associated with criminal activities

                                                                                                                                                iii.      Supreme Court has found that public concern is something that is a subject of legitimate news interest

1.       Dog-fighting is not a subject of legitimate news interest and, thus, should not be protected under the First Amendment

3.       Would the law ban other images of animals

a.       Justice Scalia believed the law’s breadth may encompass other images of animals, including bull-fighting

c.       Michael Vick now concedes dog fighting is inhumane and advocates for the ban of dog fighting

                                                                           i.      Animal welfare necessitates the ban of dog-fighting images

The Federal Animal Cruelty Law should include dog-fighting depictions because animal welfare is a matter of legitimate public interest

 

The government has an interest in reducing crime associated with dog-fighting.   Thus, the decision of the judgment of the US  Court of Appeals finding that the statute is void should be reversed because the Federal Animal Cruelty law is permitted by the Constitution’s First Amendment in the use of promoting justice and protecting the public welfare by banning dog-fighting videos under federal animal cruelty laws.  The Federal Animal Cruelty law does not violate the First Amendment because the law does not  ban dog-fighting ordinances using the First Amendment’s freedom of speech protection under the government’s authority to limit speech in the interest of justice and protection of the public welfare,  environment and quality of life does not violate the First Amendment right to freedom of communication or the freedom of expression without consent to be ratified, time, place, manner restrictions on speech are subject only to limited scrutiny.   The video ban does not limit alternative means for dog-fighting promoters to practice their freedom of expression or freedom of communication nor prohibit dog-fighting or killing of animals directly by the public neglect, abuse, testing or maintaining animals in cages for adoption and euthanizing animals who become ill, along with spay and neuter of animals for the public interest a case to control the animal population, does not prohibit the sale and selling of animals by breeders for profit in the private marketplace or restrict sellers profits setting management or shipping animals to buyers or sending images via email or distributing videos using the internet.  Ending human cruel treatment of animals is a legitimate public interest under the First Amendment.    Therefore, the ban of dog-fighting videos does not violate the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech or freedom of expression.  For these reasons, the humane treatment of animals is a public concern to the federal government under the provisions of the federal  Animal Cruelty Law, which prohibits all images of animal cruelty, the First Amendment does not protect this form of speech and the law is not overly broad or vague and the First Amendment provides remedies in relief and the Constitution’s First Amendment provides relief and protects other forms of speech and expression for dog-fight advocates who depict animal cruelty.  The Constitution vests with the legislative branch the authorization to pass federal laws, illustrating animals in forms of cruel and inhumane communication.   Congress has the authority under the Constitution to implement the federal Animal Cruelty law prohibiting the sale of dog-fighting videos.