By Glen Wunderlich Outdoor Columnist Member Professional Outdoor Media Association
Last summer, I wrote about one Robert J. Stevens of Virginia whose case was headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. He had been convicted of criminal charges for producing and selling films about dogs. To be true, most Americans would find the videos repulsive in that dogs were shown fighting and being trained to help catch prey such as wild boars. He certainly did not engage in any dog fighting or any acts of animal cruelty but simply edited historic films from the 60s and 70s – some from Japan – where the activities are legal. In an 8-1 vote this past week, the United States Supreme Court upheld a Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision that voided his conviction saying it violated the First Amendment.
At the forefront against Stevens was the Humane Society of The United States (HSUS) and on the other side were people like me that sometimes take photos related to legal hunting and fishing. Of course, the HSUS is opposed to any form of hunting and fishing and did its best to portray the case as an issue of animal cruelty, but it never was. It was about the First Amendment, plain and simple.
But, here is where the issue became clouded as the law was written: 18 USC, section 48 criminalizes the interstate sale of depictions, such as video, 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.” That’s some crazy stuff! If I were to have taken a photo of the killing of an animal during a legal hunt in Shiawassee County and it found its way to San Fransisco, where such hunting was illegal, I could have been found guilty of a federal felony crime.
Along with fellow member of the Professional Outdoor Media Association (POMA), I signed on to an Amicus Curiae brief in opposition to the stance of HSUS’ and our overzealous government. On my side was the National Rifle Association, The Cato Institute, The ACLU, National Coalition of Censorship, American Society of Media Photographers, First Amendment Lawyer’s Association and a host of others.
“POMA is grateful to the Court for this important decision,” said Laurie Lee Dovey, POMA’s executive director. “The First Amendment rights of traditional outdoor sports journalists, those who cover legal hunting and fishing and promote the enjoyment of these American heritage sports, are protected. The impact of this decision on POMA members, all journalists, and the outdoor industry can not be overstated.”
“Mr. Stevens is pleased and extremely grateful for the Supreme Court’s thoughtful consideration of his case and the decision vindicating his right, and that of all other Americans, to speak freely and to educate the public,” said Robert Steven’s attorney Patricia Millett. “Acts of animal cruelty are abhorrent and rightly condemned. Laws banning such conduct remain fully protected, as they should be. But we cannot forget how critical the free flow of information is to educating the public about the problems of animal cruelty and the need for legislative and prosecutorial action to combat it.
“The Court’s decision today is a victory not just for Mr. Stevens but also for all others who write about , photograph, and film the lives of animals in order to educate the public about lawful activities like hunting and fishing, animal conservation issues, and the lives of wild, endangered, and little known species,” Millett added. “Today the Supreme Court reinforced the protections for all who document the lives of animals and the many people who, like him, are fighting to end the mistreatment of animals and want to be able to tell the animals’ stories without fear of imprisonment or censorship. Mr. Stevens is particularly grateful to the leadership POMA showed in filing an influential amicus brief with the Supreme Court, which the Supreme Court relied upon in its decision.”
So get out there, hunt, fish and take videos and photos and share them with anyone you choose. It’s as American as free speech and the Supreme Court says so.
