On February 17, 2008 over 140 million pounds of ground beef destined for consumers and the national school lunch program was recalled following the release of undercover video taken by the Humane Society of the United States. Recordings of animal slaughter facilities and on-farm abuse continued to surface, with each expose resulting in heightened scrutiny. The unwanted attention prompted a meat and poultry industry response in the form of state legislation. The industries lobbied for whistle-blower suppression laws, commonly known as Ag Gag, which would criminalize not only undercover documentation of animal abuse but also recordings of public health violations occurring in agriculture facilities. In Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Otter, Governor of Idaho a non-profit animal rights group challenged Idaho’s Ag-Gag law as unconstitutional.
Next, write a 3-4 paper addressing the following questions: o Break down the judge’s analysis of Idaho’s challenge: Does the Idaho law outlaw
speech based on its content? Was there a compelling reason for the law’s passage? (Was there a good reason they wanted to pass this law?) Why/why not?
o What are the examples of “compelling reasons” for the government to suppress speech (why would they want to do this)?
o What is “political speech”? In what way does this case involve political speech?
*** Please use each question as section headings
Attached in addition to this PDF is an article you can use for reference as well as a link below or any other references of your choice.
https://www.rcfp.org/briefs-comments/animal-legal-defense-fund-v- otter/#:~:text=statute%20is%20unconstitutional.%E2%80%A6- ,The%20Animal%20Legal%20Defense%20Fund%2C%20ACLU%20of%20Idaho%2C%20and% 20others,the%20facility%20owner’s%20express%20consent.