High court’s 8-1 ruling protects hunting media
by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor
Legislation can be passed with the best intentions and with the widest political and public support but still fail judicial review if it violates the US constitution.
That’s what happened on April 20 when the US Supreme Court handed down an 8-1 ruling that upheld an appellate court decision that voided the conviction of a Virginia man convicted and sentenced of violating a 1999 federal law aimed at Internet sales of so-called crush videos.
Free speech advocates, including editors and journalists in the outdoor publishing world, rejoiced because the law was seen as a threat to the continued publication and videotaping of hunting and fishing scenes.
The Professional Outdoor Media Association (POMA) had taken a leading role in bringing outdoor journalists and outdoor industry organizations in support of the First Amendment argument presented before the court by Patricia Millett, attorney for Robert Stevens of Pittsville, VA.
The court’s majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. who said the law was too broad and that its objectives could be met with new legislation. He suggested that if a new measure were limited to crush videos it might be valid, but he saw the existing law as a threat to legitimate dissemination of hunting and fishing images.
The Associated Press story reporting on the decision indicated that the court have invalidated a ban on “videos that show graphic violence against animals.” The report cited the concerns of the SPCA and the anti-hunting Humane Society (HSUS) of the United States. Associated Press quoted Wayne Pacelle, president of HSUS, as claiming that hundreds of “crush videos” had resurfaced after the appellate court decision.
“POMA is grateful to the court for this important decision,” said Laurie Lee Dovey, POMA 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.”
Dovey went on to express POMA’s gratitude to Millett and the organization’s attorney Beth Heifetz of Jones Day, who crafted POMA’s amicus brief, which was cited in the Court’s opinion. She also recognized the organizations that supported POMA’s brief, including the American Society of Media Photographers, Southeastern Outdoor Press Association, Texas Outdoor Writers Association and Pennsylvania Outdoor Writers Association.
Other free speech advocates had also urged the court to declare the law unconstitutional. The National Rifle Association had submitted a brief in the case that was cited in the majority’s opinion.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. was the only dissenting vote.
The ASPCA and 26 states had joined the Obama administration is support of the law.
Stevens had run a video store in which “crush videos” had been sold including one in which pit-bull fights were depicted. He had been convicted by a circuit court and sentenced to three years in prison, 14 months more than former Atlanta quarterback Michael Vick in a much publicized case.
“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 said.
All 50 states already have law against animal cruelty, but the federal government was needed to deal with Internet violations.
Return to Archive Index