Illinois Outdoors at PrairiestateOutdoors.com
RulesIllinois Outdoors at PrairiestateOutdoors.com

Prairie State Outdoors Categories

Top Story :: Opinion :: Illinois Outdoor News :: Fishing News :: Hunting News :: Birding News :: Nature Stories :: Miscellaneous News :: Fishing :: Big Fish Fridays :: Big Fish Stories :: State Fishing Reports :: Other Fishing Reports :: Fishing Tips, Tactics & Tales :: Where to Fish :: Fishing Calendar :: Hunting :: Hunting Reports :: Hunting Tips, Tactics & Tales :: Where to Hunt :: Tales from the Timber :: Turkey Tales :: Hunting Calendar :: Big Game Stories :: Nature and Birding :: Birding Bits :: Nature Newsbits :: Critter Corner :: Birding Calendar :: Stargazing :: In the Wild :: Miscellaneous Reports and Shorts :: Links :: Hunting Links :: Birding Links :: Video ::

Big Buck Stories

1960s :: 1980s :: 1991-92 :: 1992-93 :: 1993-94 :: 1994-95 :: 1995-96 :: 1997-98 :: 1998-99 :: 1999-2000 :: 2000-01 :: 2001-02 :: 2003-04 :: 2004-05 :: 2005-06 :: 2006-07 :: 2007-08 :: 2008-09 :: 2009-10 :: 2010-11 :: 2011-12 :: 2012-13 ::

Scattershooting

Flathead's Picture of the Week :: Big bucks :: Birdwatching :: Cougars :: Dogs :: Critters :: Fishing :: Asian carp :: Bass :: Catfish :: Crappie :: Ice :: Muskie :: Humor :: Hunting :: Deer :: Ducks :: Geese :: Turkey :: Upland game :: Misc. :: Mushrooms :: Open Blog Thursday :: Picture A Day 2010 :: Plants and trees :: Politics :: Prairie :: Scattershooting :: Tales from the Trail Cams :: Wild Things ::


Print

Supreme Court ponders hunting videos

October 06, 2009 at 01:52 PM

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court justices, skeptical of a law aimed at graphic animal cruelty videos, touched Tuesday on dog fights, bull fights, cock fights, bow-and-arrow hunting, even a hypothetical television channel devoted to human sacrifice. Oh, yes, and freedom of speech.

The court weighed arguments over a 10-year-old law that bans the production and sale of the videos. A federal appeals court struck down the law and invalidated the conviction of Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Va., who was sentenced to three years in prison for videos he made about pit bull fights.

In the end, the justices appeared inclined to agree that the law is too broad and could, in some instances, apply to videos about hunting.

“Why not do a simpler thing?” Justice Stephen Breyer asked an administration lawyer. “Ask Congress to write a statute that actually aims at the frightful things they were trying to prohibit.”

But the lawyer, Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, said Congress was careful to exempt hunting, educational, journalistic and other depictions from the law.
Katyal urged the justices not to wipe away the law in its entirety, but to allow courts to decide on a case-by-case basis whether videos are prohibited.

When Congress passed the law and President Bill Clinton signed it in 1999, lawmakers were especially interested in limiting Internet sales of so-called crush videos, which appeal to a certain sexual fetish by showing women crushing to death small animals with their bare feet or high-heeled shoes.

The government said the crush videos virtually disappeared after the law took effect. Only three people have been prosecuted under the law and none relating to crush videos. Animal cruelty and dog fighting are illegal throughout the country.

Justice Samuel Alito sounded the most receptive to the government’s argument. Alito wondered whether the court should focus on the potential prosecution of hunters or, citing a Breyer example, someone who produces foie gras from a goose. “Or do we look at what’s happening in the real world?” he asked Stevens’ lawyer, Patricia Millett.

Millett said Congress has to be very careful when restricting speech and must use a “scalpel, not a buzz saw.”

It was Alito who asked about the human sacrifice channel, while Justice Anthony Kennedy chimed in with a scenario involving the airing of live pit bull fights in movie theaters, with a $10 charge for tickets.

The questions were intended to test the limits of First Amendment freedoms - and the right of Congress to intervene - in matters that most people would find offensive.

Justice Antonin Scalia was having none of it. In the area of free speech, Scalia said, “it’s not up to the government to decide what are people’s worst instincts.”
Scalia also pointed out that opponents of animal fighting may feel more free to use the images to express their views than propo nents. “People who like bull fighting, who like dog fighting, who like cock fighting ... that side of the debate is entitled to make its point as forcefully as possible,” he said.

Stevens noted in court papers that his sentence was 14 months longer than professional football player Michael Vick’s prison term for running a dogfighting ring.

Animal rights groups, including the Humane Society of the United States and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and 26 states have joined the administration in support of the law. The government says videos showing animal cruelty should be treated like child pornography, not entitled to constitutional protection.

Stevens says he also opposes animal cruelty, including dog fighting. But he argues that the government should not be able to jail someone for making films that are not obscene, inflammatory or untruthful.

A decision is expected by the spring.

The case is U.S. v. Stevens, 08- 769.

Here is an account of the same basic story written by POMA, the Professional Outdoor Media Association.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Hunting communications were a central focus of the United States Supreme Court on Tuesday as the Justices heard arguments in the case U.S. v. Stevens, 08-769.


At issue in the case is a 1999 federal law that makes it a crime to create, sell or possess videos and other depictions of cruelty to animals. The case arose over the conviction of a Virginia man, Robert Stevens, who received a three-year prison sentence from a Western Pennsylvania court for selling videos that included scenes of hunting with dogs. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conviction, stating it was in violation of Steven’s First Amendment rights.


In addition to working with the Washington, D.C., Jones Day Law Firm to file an amicus curiae brief on behalf of its members, the Professional Outdoor Media Association (POMA), headquartered in Johnstown, Pa., coordinated a larger group of amici from a wide range of constituencies, including numerous large organizations and more than 600 individual journalists, outdoor industry professionals and sportsmen.


POMA Executive Director Laurie Lee Dovey was in the courtroom to hear the arguments.


“The Justices were highly engaged,” Dovey said. “Clearly, their queries were focused on testing the limits of the First Amendment. The questions were direct and at times extreme.


“Patricia Millett, the plaintiff’s attorney, represented Mr. Stevens, the hunting and fishing industry and traditional outdoor sports journalists at the highest level,” Dovey added. “Patricia understands how the statue could criminalize the communication and promotion of legal hunting and fishing activities. She directly argued the overreach and chilling effects of the existing statute.”


Testing the wide net cast by the language of the law, hunting-related questions were debated. Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal often stated hunting imagery did not fall within the parameters of the statute. Justice Antonin Scalia seemed to disagree. Scalia concentrated on the language in the statute that says, “... a visual or auditory depiction ... in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed.”


“Kill” has one meaning, which is kill,” Scalia told Katyal, plainly indicating concerns about the legal actions of hunters. Katyal responded with a statement citing cruel killing versus hunting. Scalia countered with a question about an accidental low shot on an animal by a hunter, which he said was completely legal. Justice John Paul Stevens also asked about bow-and-arrow hunting or hunting with knives. Katyal backpedaled, saying, “So, there may be certain hunting examples that fall within it (the law).


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg looked at another aspect of the law, the separation of the filming of a criminal act and participation by a photographer in a criminal act. The abuse of the dog and the filming of the act are different, she said. The abuse would go on with or without the photographer. The comparison being made was to image-makers in child pornography cases - where the photographer is an actual participant in the criminal act.


In response to questions by Justice Stephen Bryer about Congress simply writing a statute that actually aims at the “frightful things they were trying to prohibit,” Millett agreed Congress must use a scalpel, not a buzz saw, when crafting statutes that restrict free speech.


Justice Samuel Alito posed the most difficult hypothetical of the day to Millett. He asked if the First Amendment would cover “a human sacrifice channel”. The discomfort in the courtroom was palpable.


Taking a few moments to collect her thoughts, obviously taken aback by the extreme nature of the Justice’s example, Millett responded.


“I don’t want to watch this channel, and people should fight with their wallets and their votes and not support these things,” she said. “But, under the First Amendment, if the only rationale Congress is giving is we are here to shield your eyes for you, we will make this censorial decision, it has got to find some basis to think that was never freedom of speech under the First Amendment, in the way that obscenity was. You don’t get to make it up as you go along. We are interpreting a constitution.”


The United States Humane Society, which pushed the original prosecution of Robert Stevens, claimed this case was and is about animal cruelty. POMA, National Rifle Association, Safari Club International, National Media Coalition, American Society of Media Photographers, National Press Photographer’s Association and dozens of other groups, which filed amicus curiae briefs in the case, strongly disagreed. They defined U.S. v. Stevens as a First Amendment case that could have potentially devastating consequences on journalists and Americans’ right to information.


A decision could come sometime after the first of the year, but the Court’s final deadline is July 1, 2010.

Your CommentsComments :: Terms :: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

seriously, have you seen the crap on TV and now hunting videos are “bad” give me a break…
how do these people have that much spare time….
i understand the dog fighting and such, but get real…... hunting

look in the bible, hunting has been around since the beginning.

what won’t they take…....
ah….. to live in a free country is sooo far from free

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/06 at 03:20 PM

I think the headline was very poorly worded.  This law has been on the books for 10 years and obviously has not been applied to hunting.  This article appears to be another attempt at stirring up the passions of people who have nothing to fear.  MJC3 - Nowhere in the article did hunting come up except from Alito who was supporting the gov’t position.  There are real reasons to fear gov’t reach.  IMO, this is not one of those examples.  I also think it is debatable if this article even belongs on this site with that rediculous, misleading headline.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/06 at 03:40 PM

If you want to wath dogfights…..move to Mexice.
...
As for the rest of it, I don’t think hunters should be too quick to defend the commercialization of hunting. I don’t think the “money” will serve us well in the long run.
...
Where do you draw the line between free speech and some idiot selling a video of a tasteless unethical shot? Beats me….but pushing the line for the sake of profit is sheer stupidity from where I’m atanding.

Posted by Henry Holt on 10/06 at 07:56 PM

Same old crap on all the videos.  Im kinda tired of seeing Jay Gregory, Alex Rutledge, Bill Jordan, etc, etc killing buck after buck while showing their hunter specialties products, carbon express arrows, charmin toilet paper and all the other crap they jam down our throat. I would rather watch a amateur video of billy bob killing a doe.  Its pure.  The only work they do is go climb into a stand on some outfitters place and wait.  This is one problem that has brought Illinois to the point its at now.  Started with the now “Not so Golden Triangle” and it gave birth to other parts of the states.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/06 at 08:52 PM

If my memory serves me correct i think one of the new england stats already banned hunting videos.
But i do agree with ilbowhunter,,,tired of see all these so called hunting videos of these people of the industry,,they all should be banned.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/07 at 05:57 AM

The law doesn’t apply to lawfully taken game or fish on video.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/07 at 08:19 AM

Here is the statute:

The Statute - 18 U.S.C. ? 48

(a) Creation, Sale, or Possession.- Whoever knowingly creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) Exception.- Subsection (a) does not apply to any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.
(c) Definitions.- In this section-

  (1) the term “depiction of animal cruelty” means any visual or auditory depiction, including any photograph, motion-picture film, video recording, electronic image, or sound recording of conduct in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed, if such conduct is illegal under Federal law or the law of the State in which the creation, sale, or possession takes place, regardless of whether the maiming, mutilation, torture, wounding, or killing took place in the State; and
  (2) the term “State” means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

Posted by Jeff Lampe on 10/07 at 01:27 PM

That staute does read as overly broad but I stand by my statement that the headline was very misleading and does not involve legality of hunting videos that are legally made during hunting season.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/07 at 04:33 PM

Comment Area Pool Rules

  1. Read our Terms of Service.
  2. You must be a member. :: Register here :: Log In
  3. Keep it clean.
  4. Stay on topic.
  5. Be civil, honest and accurate.
  6. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Log In

Register as a new member

Next entry: Wyoming wildlife underpasses working

Previous entry: Reading your whitetail breeding nucleus

Log Out

RSS & Atom Feeds

Prairie State Outdoors
PSO on Facebook
Promote Your Page Too

News Archives

January 2018
S M T W T F S
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Copyright © 2007-2014 GateHouse Media, Inc.
Some Rights Reserved
Original content available for non-commercial use
under a Creative Commons license, except where noted.
Creative Commons