Supreme Court to hear hunting video case

 On October the sixth the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the United States vs. Stevens case. The outcome of this case has the potential to affect every form of hunting video sold or broadcasted in the United States. Depending on how the court rules, hunting television shows, DVD’s and even personal pictures of hunting trips on the Internet could fall under a federal statute that was intended to prevent the trafficking of media depicting animal cruelty. A portion of the video content in this case involves catch dogs trained to hold a wild boar while hunting. The court will have to decide if this is a form of animal cruelty and if this law is constitutional.  What is disturbing is how the language of the original law could create a precedent that includes hunting as a form of animal cruelty and therefore interstate commerce of media depicting hunting would be illegal. Further than that, the long term implications of a Supreme Court ruling that hunting falls into this category could open a floodgate of state and local lawsuits from animal rights groups attempting to ban hunting.  Though it is far outside the realm of this case and the original law, it is a safe bet that the groups dedicated to ending hunting and all animal use are salivating at the thought of using a Supreme Court ruling to file injunctions against hunting seasons. 

Robert Steven’s videos do include dog fighting scenes and other unsavory images. He also advertised his video wares in “Sporting Dog Journal”, a magazine devoted to illegal dog fighting. That some of the content depicts scenes that do fall under the statute of animal cruelty is not in dispute. This is not a court case about animal cruelty or hunting but rather is about what constitutes speech protected under the First Amendment. There are limits to the Bill of Rights; unprotected speech is something like child pornography. Everyone can agree that that kind of media is undoubtedly harmful to individuals and society. The original intent of this particular law was to outlaw distribution of pornography that involved cruelty to animals, a noble purpose. However, the first application of this law happened to be this case and unfortunately it has ramifications that go well beyond the intent of the original law.

Interpretation of the law is subjective and depends on the thought processes of individuals. What the outdoor sporting community must pay attention to in this case is the ramifications of how a ruling in this case may be interpreted by Federal Agencies in the future such as the FCC. Most rulings in court are a split decision and the Judges that cannot agree are the experts in this field. If the experts are rarely unanimous, we cannot reasonably expect an educated but non-expert person to always reach the conclusion that was the original intent of the law. We cannot as society even come to an agreement about the meaning of the Second Amendment, even though it is very clear what rights were intended to be protected. This case itself is an example of a law that was interpreted differently from the original intent; to prevent people from profiting from scenes depicting unspeakable acts of animal cruelty. Although it is morally correct to include dog fighting in this realm and most people would agree with the prosecution of such people, it was not what the law was meant to prevent. The scenes that include hunting in the scope of the media content can bring some unintended consequences in the future for all hunters.

Many groups on both sides have filed amicus (friend of the court) briefs with the court. Hunting groups have filed briefs explaining how a ruling could negatively impact our sport and how a ruling on the original, vaguely worded law will affect the hunting media industry.  Animal welfare groups have filed briefs in favor of allowing continued prosecution of people that distribute images of animal cruelty.  Of course the animal rights groups have filed in favor of having any distribution of any form of media depicting animals being harvested as a crime.  They may not word it that way but it is their intent; just as it is their intent to end all hunting.  This is an issue that all hunters need to watch carefully as it will affect the future of hunting and free speech.