A case to be heard by Supreme Court of the United States might result in serious problems for any person, outlet or entity that shows or sells depictions of hunting and fishing activities.

Felony Charges and Jail Time

Taking, selling or publishing images of hunting, fishing or trapping could mean felony charges and jail time, for

journalists
photographers
magazine publishers
television show hosts and producers
Web content publishers
artists
equipment manufacturers
stock photography agencies
outdoor organizations
book authors and sellers
sales representatives
public relations agencies
hunters and anglers, in general
and many more


Background on the Case

Here are links to three documents that offer background on the case. Determine if you feel your business, livelihood, constitutional rights and/or basic freedom may be threatened by this case.

Summary of the Case -- included below

Decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit in United States v. Robert Stevens

Brief in Opposition -- filed before the Supreme Court


Summary of the Case

UNITED STATES of America
v.
Robert J. STEVENS, Appellant.
No. 05-2497

United States Court of Appeals,
Third Circuit.

Argued Oct. 25, 2006.
Argued En Banc Nov. 13, 2007.

Filed July 18, 2008.

This summary and the documents listed above explain well the serious risk the government's case against Stevens poses to those who produce depictions of hunting and fishing activities.

Robert J. Stevens of Virginia was convicted of criminal charges for producing and selling films about dogs. Stevens' conviction was overturned as a result of a Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision that said the law relied upon to convict Stevens was unconstitutional.

Stevens may still go to prison. The case is now being heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. The outcome could be devastating to all journalists and specifically to the traditional outdoor sports of hunting, fishing and trapping.

The Third Circuit struck down a federal law banning "depictions of animal cruelty." 18 USC 48. The statute does not ban acts of animal cruelty themselves (and so this case is not about such actions). It bans images of animals being hurt, wounded or killed if the depicted conduct is illegal under federal law or illegal under the state law either (i) where the creation of the depiction occurs, or (ii) where the depiction is sold or possessed.

That means that a picture taken of the killing of an animal during a hunt (perfectly lawful where it occurred) could be a federal felony crime if that picture is sold or possessed somewhere in the United States where hunting (or the particular type of hunting, ie, crossbow) is prohibited.

As the court of appeals explained, the law now makes it a federal felony to buy a picture of bullfighting in Spain or an image shot by a journalist of a hunter or angler taking a shot at a legal game animal or catching a fish -- if that action is unlawful anywhere in the U.S.

The law creates an exception if a jury finds that the images have "serious" value. The government defined "serious" as "significant and of great import." The result accordingly is that all depictions of animal killings that might be unlawful somewhere in the U.S. are now presumptively federal felonies, with the only hope of protection being that a jury in San Francisco (or wherever an eager prosecutor wants to go) agrees that the images are "significant and of great import."

The government and Humane Society, which is pushing this issue hard, are trying to paint this as a case about dog fighting, since that incites peoples' emotions. it's about the First Amendment.

Mr. Stevens, is a 69-year-old hunter and Pit Bull dog lover from Southern Virginia. He is a published author. He has no criminal record at all -- other than this conviction. He has been sentenced to more than three years (37 months) in prison for making films. Nothing else.

A prosecutor hauled him to Pittsburgh, perhaps because obtaining a conviction in rural Virginia would be difficult, to prosecute him for: one documentary he made about training catch dogs for hunting (called "Catch Dogs"); and two documentaries he made about Pit Bulls and their fighting history.

For that, Stevens faces spending three years in federal prison.

Of particular concern to the hunting and fishing industry is the fact Stevens' prosecution rested on his film "Catch Dogs", which showed how dogs are trained to help catch prey (wild boar, etc.). The film shows a dog making a mistake in trying to catch a hog, but does so with Stevens talking over the images about the training mistake and explaining what should be done to teach dogs to catch prey properly.

There is no allegation that Stevens engaged in dog fighting or any acts of animal cruelty. Nor is it even alleged that the images depicted in his films were illegal when taken. Furthermore, he did not take the images himself, but edited together films taken by others -- films that were recorded in Japan, where the conduct is perfectly legal, and from historic films from the 60s and 70s in rural America.

To be sure, the latter two films contain extensive images of dog fighting. But Stevens is not a dog fighter, he opposes dog fighting, but loves the traits in Pit Bulls that made them fighters.

Stevens' films were made to document the strength, endurance, and similar features of Pit Bulls to support his argument (made at length in his book) that Pit Bulls make great hunting dogs, protection dogs, and schutzhund (strength contests) dogs.

Been watching this build and fighting it for a long time.

We all need to be more involved in youth activities to "help mould" the voters of the future.

Gotta love the post modern morality in our anything goes culture.

Gay porn? Protected speech.

A picture of fishing with your kids? Felony

Welcome to Amerika, comrade.

For the past 4 or 5 years, I have been telling anyone that would listen, the the HSUS was 1000 times more of a threat toward hunting/fishing/livestock production/pet ownership, than PETA ever dreamed of being.

While PETA was running around being ineffectual, HSUS was spreading it's gospel among reasonably sane people, including hunters and fishermen.

I can look at this from both sides of the coin, as I do not think dog fighting or videos about dog fighting should be legal.

While I have no desire to hunt hogs with dogs, I have no problem if someone else does.

The problems arise, when some well intentioned but seriously misguided people, begin equating all forms of the use of dogs in a "Sporting Manner" as being animal cruelty, if not for the game being hunted, then for the dogs being forced to work.

Maybe I did not read far enough into the info, but already on eBay, if an Outfitter/Guide is planning on offering hunts world wide, eBay's policy is to not allow pictures of dead game animals as some foriegn countries and their citizens, while being ardent hunters, find pictures of dead animals distasteful.

This is just another attack on hunting and fishing, but this time it is being conducted by a foe that has established themselves as a respected group thru the use of very effective emotional propaganda.

Thanks for posting the info Tony, maybe it will help those that read it, finally understand that not ALL of the enemies that want to see the death of hunting and fishing, are loonies seeking headlines and noteriety.

I think people are going to realize, quite possibly too late that we are facing an enemy now that has developed a power base possibly rivaling, if not actually more powerful than the NRA.

JMO.

The amount of BS cases like this is incredible. By that I mean the sheer number of nonsensical cases is amazing. We definetly need a very watchfull eye where the HSUS is anywhere to be found.

Ken....

Whoa, guys, slow down. Read the opinion in the link provided above.
First of all, the Atty General's office is more or less obliged to defend an appeal as to the constitutionality of a statute passed by Congress, no matter which party was in the majority when the statute was passed, which party held the White House when the case was commenced and which party controls the White House at the time of the decision. (If you read the decision you will see that the law was passed in 1999, when the GOP was in the majority in both houses and the appeal was commenced when the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. So this isn't some wierd liberal crusade, at least as far as the action of the government is concerned.)
Secondly, a 10-3 Court of Appeals ruled that the statute in question impermissably attempted to regulate protected speech. Historically, free speech has enjoyed extremely strong protection from the courts. (That's why even some pretty obnoxious "art" enjoys protection.)The 10-3 vote reflects that.
Finally, read the statute, as quoted at page 221 of the opinion. Representations of the killing of an animal are punishable "if such conduct [the killing of an animal] is illegal under Federal law or the law of the state in which the...killing takes place...." 18USCsec. 48(c)(1).
In other words, the statute explicitly exempts from coverage depictions of people shooting at or otherwise killing game animals and fish-- so long as such conduct is legal where the action depicted took place. The depictions in question here included narrated videos of illegal dog fighting. But even that "speech" was found to be protected by a 10-3 vote of the 3d Circuit.

I really wouldn't get too worried about this one. Read the opinion, not the commentary on it, and judge for yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by sdirks:
Finally, read the statute, as quoted at page 221 of the opinion. Representations of the killing of an animal are punishable "if such conduct [the killing of an animal] is illegal under Federal law or the law of the state in which the...killing takes place...." 18USCsec. 48(c)(1).

Whoa. Nice interpretation, but you left out all the important words.


The entire section reads:

(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;

Read the part in bold, and especially that in RED. IOW, the law has nothing to do with the actual killing, per se; it addresses the "depiction" of the killing and WHERE that "depiction" is produced, not where the action (killing) actually occurred.

So here's an example.

You film a friend's bear hunt in Alberta where baiting is legal. You then head home to your state where bear baiting is ILLEGAL and produce a film from the video you took on that hunt. In it, you show the bait buckets and your friend shooting the bear. You then attempt to sell the video in any other state where bait baiting is illegal. Or...you try to sell it on an internet site based in your home state that is available to all other states, many of which do not permit bear baiting. Either action places it into interstate commerce for profit, thus in violation.

You have just violated the letter of the law by "depicting" a legal activity where it happened but the activity is illegal "under Federal law or the law of the State in which the creation, sale, or possession takes place."

The reason for the case in the first place supports this. He "depicted" dog fighting, which was legal in Japan but not here, where he planned to sell the film.

All that said, I tend to agree that the SC will uphold the appeal court's decision. BUT.. one never knows for sure.

I would be extremely surprised to see the supremes even grant review. This was a very open-and-shut decision as far as the CA was concerned.(It is also well worth noting that this decision was the first in which the constitutionality of the statute was considered.) What Congress intended to do was make illegal trafficking in some pretty nasty stuff ("crush films") and in so doing, as is often the case with even well-intended legislatures, they cast their net too widely. I really wouldn't worry about this one.

I agree with sdirks. I would be surprised if the SCOTUS agrees to hear this one.

quote:

Posted 13 June 2009 01:59 Hide Post
I would be extremely surprised to see the supremes even grant review. This was a very open-and-shut decision as far as the CA was concerned.(It is also well worth noting that this decision was the first in which the constitutionality of the statute was considered.) What Congress intended to do was make illegal trafficking in some pretty nasty stuff ("crush films") and in so doing, as is often the case with even well-intended legislatures, they cast their net too widely. I really wouldn't worry about this one.

Hope you are right in your assumption, but keep in mind the type of folks you are dealing with.

They do not have the ability to understand nor seperate between Dog Fighting and the use of working dogs for hunting anything, to these folks it is ALL cruelty, either for the dogs or the game or both.

The problem arises, when matters such as this are run thru under the radar and NO ONE calls attention to the fact that while some of what is being contested needs to be dealt with, Dog Fighting in this case, using dogs to hunt feral hogs or bears or mountain lions does not be addressed by the HSUS or anyone else that has no real working kbnowledge of the way things are done.

If folks are not made aware of the possible outcomes, they could wake up one day and find out that using a bird dog to find and point quail is illegal, both in states and Federally.

Are you willing to take the chance that our Goverment is capable making decisions knowledgeably that could adversely affect all of us, due to emotional pandering by one group such as the HSUS??

Crazyhorseconsulting wrote:

quote:

Are you willing to take the chance that our Goverment is capable making decisions knowledgeably...

Those words, my friend, really hit home are are something we should always consider.