November 21, 2009
What's Inside:
First Amendment battle could possibly affect the entire outdoor community
When it comes to sportsmen and constitutional rights, the Second Amendment and firearms always seem to be at the forefront. Now there’s a new battle in America involving First Amendment rights that could substantially affect the entire outdoor community and every hunter or angler in America.
The issue came to light when an obscure federal law was used in March 2004 to indict Virginia resident Robert Stevens. According to court records, the defendant was charged with knowingly selling depictions of animal cruelty with the intention of placing the depictions in interstate commerce for commercial gain.
What does this federal court case have to do with the outdoors? A look at the actual law used to indict Stevens will show why the outdoor community — including groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA), National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), Outdoor Writers Association of America (OWAA) and the Professional Outdoor Media Association (POMA) — is speaking out and getting involved.
The law, United States Code, Title 18, Section 48 states; “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 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”
It goes on to say this law “does not apply to any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value.” The remaining section is what many sportsmen will find disturbing as it goes on to define “depictions of animal cruelty” as “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.”
Stevens was initially convicted in the case in Pennsylvania but the decision was then overturned by the Third Court of Appeals. The case is now headed to the United States Supreme Court and will tentatively be heard this fall.
An amicus brief requesting the U.S. Supreme Court overturn the federal statute was filed in the U.S. vs. Stevens case on July 24 by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of The Press (a non-profit organization dedicated to providing free legal assistance to journalists). The brief addresses hunting and fishing videos and other depictions as defined by the federal statute that will affect the entire outdoor community.
The brief describes how the statute used to prosecute Robert Stevens likewise could be used to prosecute producers of outdoor videos, hunting and fishing shows and the media in general.
The brief cited the following example, “killing a deer in Oregon by crossbow is illegal, and can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor. Yet crossbow hunting is allowed in some cases in Washington State with a valid permit. As broadly as Section 48 is worded, possessing a photograph in Washington of a deer being killed with a crossbow in Oregon becomes a federal felony, even though that type of hunting is sometimes permitted in Washington and the underlying harm is only a misdemeanor in Oregon.
“Worse yet, the reverse is also true because the statute reaches depictions of conduct prohibited by the state in which “possession takes place.” It thus appears to be a felony for anyone in Oregon to possess depictions of legal, licensed crossbow hunting in Washington.”
NRA officials also noted that the federal statute does not apply to any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic “value.” If the statute is upheld, the NRA points out that the federal government will have the legally vague authority to determine “value.”
“They could then use this moral mandate to destroy those they don’t approve of, such as hunters and trappers,” an NRA statement reads. “This is why this case — U.S. v. Stevens — is about the First Amendment, not animal cruelty; after all, animal cruelty is already illegal in all 50 states.”
Outdoors correspondent Jeff Leonard can be reached at outdoors@npgco.com
This story has 10 comments. Click here to join in on the discussion.
Story Tools
Hyperlink Legend
E-mail story
Print friendly version
iPod friendly version
Today's Top Headlines
Holiday requests expected to rise
Grain truck concerns arise after wreck
Toy hamster’s popularity says a lot about economy
Stewart sentenced in sodomy case
In the courts, Nov. 21, 2009
JOB SEARCH
RECENTLY DISCUSSED
Coleman, Intel join forces
(86 comments)
City wants grant to battle smoking
(76 comments)
Your letters, Nov. 21, 2009
(17 comments)
It's your call, Nov. 19, 2009
(54 comments)
More Popular Discussions
(86 comments)
City wants grant to battle smoking
(76 comments)
Your letters, Nov. 21, 2009
(17 comments)
It's your call, Nov. 19, 2009
(54 comments)
This would also affect the slaughter houses in
the country. All documentary movies and photos
on this subject would brake the law.
***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.”**8
This isn't a battle..it is a bunch of mumbo jumbo. All 50 states have hunting seasons too.If you make a video of a duck hunt while it is duck season with the proper federal stamps, state stamps and hunting permits, and abide by seasons and limits..you have violated no federal crime or State crime.
If you poach a deer, shoot wildlife out of season, use an electric shocker to get fish..etc You are a criminal and do not deserve any protection for selling videos of your crimes.
I have read (or tried to)a copy of the federal migratory bird act. The Sale,Transport, and what is permitted and strongly what is not permitted is clearly defined. But have yet to see anything about videos of legal hunts being a crime.
The indictment arose out of an investigation by federaland Pennsylvania law enforcement agents who had discovered
that Stevens had been advertising pit bull related videos and
merchandise through his business. Stevens advertised these
videos in Sporting Dog Journal, an underground publication
featuring articles on illegal dogfighting. Law enforcement
officers arranged to buy three videotapes from Stevens, which
form the basis for each of the counts in the indictment. The first
two tapes, entitled “Pick-A-Winna” and “Japan Pit Fights,”
show circa 1960s and 70s footage of organized dog fights that
occurred in the United States and involved pit bulls, as well as
footage of more recent dog fights, also involving pit bulls, from
Japan. The third video, entitled “Catch Dogs,” shows footage
of hunting excursions in which pit bulls were used to “catch”
wild boar, as well as footage of pit bulls being trained to
perform the function of catching and subduing hogs or boars.
This video includes a gruesome depiction of a pit bull attacking
the lower jaw of a domestic farm pig. The footage in all three
videos is accompanied by introductions, narration and
commentary by Stevens, as well as accompanying literature of
which Stevens is the author.
That is a sample of the whats in the idictment. How about you print what the whole story is and portray this clown as someone that is on video legally taking wildlife being prosecuted.
I read the amicus brief concerning overturning section 48 and nowhere in it does it mention that Mr. Stevens was indited over pit bull fighting videos or in the later articles as a matter of fact. If this is in fact true then where can I find mention of it? Otherwise I cannot just take your word for it.
I stand corrected, I looked up more articles and found mention of pit bull fighting in them, I think that the overturn of section 48 should have mentioned that. It made him sound so innocent. I think 48 is too all encompassing and can be very dangerous as it is. I believe it does need to be overturned. I believe without it Mr. Stevens could have been prosecuted or made to take down illegal pit bull fighting videos which i believe to be abbhorant.
section 48 was news to me. it really needs to be changed before we all become lawbreakers in a lawfull pursuit of our choice to hunt or fish. you know peta will use this to further their agenda.
i like many others despise the use of dogs for fighting just for our pleasure,sick,just sick.
i own two pitbulls both getting along in age,and they are the most loving animals i've ever owned. if you think there mean explain why they let strangers in to take my tv. knowing these two they help. oh well good thing i probably would have been sued.
Thsi idiot was not making vidoes for the Outdoor Channel..and as a sportsman I resent being called to arms for some battle over selling pit bull fighting videos with misinformation.
PETA is going to love this statute. Can you imagine Ted Nugent imprisoned for his hunting/survival series? How about shows about deep sea fishing or scuba diving?
Why stop with deep sea fishing and scuba diving? How about the fishing shows with the bass fishermen? How about many of the other sportsmen shows?
Of course....it's cruel and inhumane to kill an animal, but it's still legal, in every state, to kill a human embryo.....
Where's PETA on THAT issue???