| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/24/2009 12:34:20 AM · #1 |
U S Legal action over hunting photos
United States V. Robert J. Stevens case.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2009 12:39:44 AM · #2 |
oh, only if the event actually happened.
Message edited by author 2009-07-24 00:40:36. |
|
|
|
07/24/2009 12:39:55 AM · #3 |
Hunting and fishing is not illegal in my state...so I guess not. Thank You NRA!!
|
|
|
|
07/24/2009 12:40:30 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by crayon:
does that also means that we can no longer watch action movies because humans are getting hurt, killed? |
Good point...what if children are hurt in them, too?
|
|
|
|
07/24/2009 12:42:45 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Hunting and fishing is not illegal in my state...so I guess not. Thank You NRA!! |
If you carry any of those photos or files to a state where hunting that particular animal or bird is illegal, then you can go to jail. It's already a federal law.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2009 12:49:58 AM · #6 |
The videos were of pit bulls attacking, and ripping the guts out of hogs that were still kicking. This is a special brand of film watched by "Crush film" fans, they like to watch animals die, usually slowly. It doesn't exactly sound like the same sort of footage as taking a pheasant on the wing.
How this is any worse than what happens in any slaughter house, I'm not sure. But this is the first time I've heard of pit bulls being used in hunting.
Don't worry though, there is no way the SCOTUS is going to touch this with a ten foot pole.
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
If you carry any of those photos or files to a state where hunting that particular animal or bird is illegal, then you can go to jail. It's already a federal law. |
Really? Care to point out what law that might be?
Message edited by author 2009-07-24 00:52:26. |
|
|
|
07/24/2009 12:53:08 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by article:
In 1999, Congress sought to do something about the sale of ﾃ｢彡rush videos,ﾃ｢ or short films showing women crushing small animals with their bare feet or high heels. Crush videos appeal to a small segment of the population who find them sexually gratifying. |
Crush videos? Sounds like something Slippy started.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2009 01:37:13 AM · #8 |
[/quote]
Really? Care to point out what law that might be? [/quote]
From the article in the link;
This may sound like something out of 1984, but in United States v. Robert J. Stevens, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide this fall if photos like the one above, or video that shows hunters shooting at game, violate a 1999 federal law (18 USC ﾃつｧ 48) that bans depictions of animal cruelty.
The ban means that taking, possessing or selling images of an animal being harvested is a federal crime if the material is sold or possessed somewhere in the U.S. where the hunting of that animal (e.g., mourning doves) or the type of hunting (e.g., crossbow) is illegal.
For example, ﾃ｢廩unting is illegal in the District of Columbia,ﾃ｢ said Ryan Shores, one of the attorneys writing an amicus brief opposing the law on behalf of the NRA. ﾃ｢弑nder this law, if you sell a deer hunting video in D.C., then itﾃ｢冱 a criminally punishable offense.ﾃ｢
Message edited by author 2009-07-24 01:40:26.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2009 02:09:02 AM · #9 |
I think some of the bullfighting photos in my sofobomo book (go to the issuu version to avoid downloading the PDF) is probably in trouble.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2009 02:54:09 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Hunting and fishing is not illegal in my state...so I guess not. Thank You NRA!! |
If you carry any of those photos or files to a state where hunting that particular animal or bird is illegal, then you can go to jail. It's already a federal law. |
Murder is illegal everywhere.
If you take picture of someone getting killed, by this logic, you could be punished. Illogical I would say. |
|
|
|
07/24/2009 03:10:00 AM · #11 |
The article does state
The law provides exemptions for images that have serious ﾃ｢徨eligious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.ﾃ｢ But it's up to a jury to decide what has ﾃ｢徭erious value.ﾃ｢
The intent seems reasonable although the execution, no pun intended, seems way over the top.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2009 07:30:37 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by article:
In 1999, Congress sought to do something about the sale of ﾃ｢彡rush videos,ﾃ｢ or short films showing women crushing small animals with their bare feet or high heels. Crush videos appeal to a small segment of the population who find them sexually gratifying. |
Crush videos? Sounds like something Slippy started. |
In his videos he trades high heels for farts. |
|
|
|
07/24/2009 11:07:44 AM · #13 |
Serious 1st amendment rights at issue here, so
Bump for the mid day crowd.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2009 11:53:34 AM · #14 |
In my opinion, this is less about the first admendment issue and more about the sick animal cruelty.
I think the article you posted is showing only one side of the case. Here is an article on the case itself: CNN Article
I also disagree with this statement: "Stevensﾃ｢ films document the history of pit bulls and how to properly train them for hunting purposes"..."But Stevens strongly opposes dog fighting"
If that is truely the case then why in the hell would he advertise his videos in a dogfighting magazine:
"According to court records, undercover federal agents found he was advertising his tapes in "Sporting Dog Journal," an underground magazine on illegal dogfighting." And in regards to the hunting - his videos included ""gruesome depiction of a pit bull attacking the lower jaw of a domestic farm pig," according to the Philadelphia-based appeals court." Since when is a domestic farm pigs hunting game?
Just the idea of his videos, and all the other videos underground depicting animal cruelty for entertainment makes me sick to my stomach.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2009 02:23:33 PM · #15 |
Oh my god, we are used to crazy laws being passed here (or by the European parliament), but this is insane!
But then again I was against the banning of fox hunting.. Lets face it, if the foxes didnt enjoy it they wouldn't of joined in.
Flameproof suit on and ready for action. |
|
|
|
07/24/2009 02:55:11 PM · #16 |
| *Art plans his escape from handbasket* |
|
|
|
07/24/2009 03:03:48 PM · #17 |
Just to sound like a bleeding-hearted liberal, and a non-hunter, I don't quite understand why people want pictures of animals in the process of dying. Doesn't appeal to me much.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2009 03:37:50 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Just to sound like a bleeding-hearted liberal, and a non-hunter, I don't quite understand why people want pictures of animals in the process of dying. Doesn't appeal to me much. |
It doesn't appeal to me much, still, there can be somme very nice hunting pictures.
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
Serious 1st amendment rights at issue here
|
Just don't confuse the right of free speech and the right to do anything you want.But I agree this a a very dangerous ground for photgraphers rights.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2009 03:44:54 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Just to sound like a bleeding-hearted liberal, and a non-hunter, I don't quite understand why people want pictures of animals in the process of dying. Doesn't appeal to me much. |
Woops - I better go cancel the "Field & Stream" gift subscription I got you. ;-)
Coming up on America's Most Wanted:
If you have any information on the photographer who took this picture, please report.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2009 04:08:51 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
If you carry any of those photos or files to a state where hunting that particular animal or bird is illegal, then you can go to jail. It's already a federal law. |
Really? Care to point out what law that might be? |
From the article in the link;
This may sound like something out of 1984, but in United States v. Robert J. Stevens, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide this fall if photos like the one above, or video that shows hunters shooting at game, violate a 1999 federal law (18 USC ﾃつｧ 48) that bans depictions of animal cruelty.
The ban means that taking, possessing or selling images of an animal being harvested is a federal crime if the material is sold or possessed somewhere in the U.S. where the hunting of that animal (e.g., mourning doves) or the type of hunting (e.g., crossbow) is illegal.
For example, ﾃ｢廩unting is illegal in the District of Columbia,ﾃ｢ said Ryan Shores, one of the attorneys writing an amicus brief opposing the law on behalf of the NRA. ﾃ｢弑nder this law, if you sell a deer hunting video in D.C., then itﾃ｢冱 a criminally punishable offense.ﾃ｢ |
This is from the NRA web site, and they are making scary conjectures about what might happen if this case goes to the SCOTUS and is affirmed. A conjecture based on two things that have not happened.
You said
"If you carry any of those photos or files to a state where hunting that particular animal or bird is illegal, then you can go to jail. It's already a federal law."
So let me ask again, what law is "already a federal law"? There isn't one, there won't be one, Ill be happy to eat my hat if you can show me where there is a law on the books now that bans the distribution of hunting games or videos, with the exception of videos that are primarily about the pain and suffering of dying animals, being killed slowly for the purient enjoyment people who get off on this sort of thing. If what you were saying were true ninety percent of the shows on National Geographic and Animal Planet would fall under the same laws. They don't.
Message edited by author 2009-07-24 16:14:30. |
|
|
|
07/24/2009 04:21:42 PM · #21 |
From the article:
ﾃ｢弋here shouldnﾃ｢冲 be a need for another law to prevent the distribution and sale of films on cock fighting, dog fighting and other things like that because laws already exist to address those crimes,ﾃ｢ added Miller.
Seriously? What kind of logic is that? Snuff videos and child porn are illegal. Even though the acts depicted are already illegal. That statement is just dumb!
there is always a way around it. Having the law that you can't show people drinking alcohol hasn't stopped alcohol commercials. They just bring the glass right up to their mouths and... uhhh. logo. I don't think it will really hurt the hunting media industry mcuh, even if it applies to them. Which I don't think it will because I'm sure they get can the lawyers to argue them into the educational category.
I don't really see what all the fuss is about. But guess I'm not so into shooting animals for fun and taking photos of it... |
|
|
|
07/24/2009 05:03:11 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
This is from the NRA web site, and they are making scary conjectures about what might happen if this case goes to the SCOTUS and is affirmed. A conjecture based on two things that have not happened.
You said
"If you carry any of those photos or files to a state where hunting that particular animal or bird is illegal, then you can go to jail. It's already a federal law."
So let me ask again, what law is "already a federal law"? There isn't one, there won't be one, Ill be happy to eat my hat |
//www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000048----000-.html
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 3 > ﾃつｧ 48
ﾃつｧ 48. Depiction of animal cruelty
(a) Creation, Sale, or Possession.ﾃ｢ 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.ﾃ｢ Subsection (a) does not apply to any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.
(c) Definitions.ﾃ｢ In this sectionﾃ｢
(1) the term ﾃ｢彭epiction of animal crueltyﾃ｢ 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; and
(2) the term ﾃ｢彜tateﾃ｢ means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
bold = interpretation so yeah there is one on the books as I see it.
Need some salt and pepper?
:-P
Message edited by author 2009-07-24 17:13:21. |
|
|
|
07/24/2009 05:36:57 PM · #23 |
| After the Aromoana massacre we had here in New Zealand back in 1990, it became almost impossible to get photographs that showed firearms being used developed. The photo store owners had been instructed to inform the police of anyone trying to get their photos developed. Such massacres are virtually unheard of in New Zealand so there was a lot of hysteria & some really silly over reaction to the event. |
|
|
|
07/24/2009 07:00:33 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
bold = interpretation so yeah there is one on the books as I see it.
Need some salt and pepper?
:-P |
Nope, that statute in no way applies to the origin statement that an image of hunting would be illegal, until some jury of twelve dedicated PETA whackjobs finds that hunting is per se animal cruelty, and it stands the inevitable appeal, that statue is not one that could be construed to cover the statement "If you carry any of those photos or files to a state where hunting that particular animal or bird is illegal, then you can go to jail. It's already a federal law."
It is illegal to make or possess images depicting animal cruelty, because animal cruelty is illegal. Hunting isn't illegal so the images of hunting can not be construed to violate the above quoted statute. Find me a law that bans an image of any sort of hunting of this sort (as used in the original NRA article) and I'll get that salt and pepper out. If you consider crushing puppies underfoot or turning loose a pitbull on a penned domestic pig hunting, then yes, your sort of hunting would be covered by that law. I feel free to photograph pheasant hunters like the fellow depicted above, though I think I might stay closer to the hunting line than that photographer lest my lens be pockmarked by bird shot. |
|
|
|
07/24/2009 08:08:20 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
bold = interpretation so yeah there is one on the books as I see it.
Need some salt and pepper?
:-P |
Nope, that statute in no way applies to the origin statement that an image of hunting would be illegal, until some jury of twelve dedicated PETA whackjobs finds that hunting is per se animal cruelty, and it stands the inevitable appeal, that statue is not one that could be construed to cover the statement "If you carry any of those photos or files to a state where hunting that particular animal or bird is illegal, then you can go to jail. It's already a federal law."
It is illegal to make or possess images depicting animal cruelty, because animal cruelty is illegal. Hunting isn't illegal ... |
This does seem to indicate that if hunting that pheasant is illegal in state B and you killed it in State A, the PHOTO would be illegal to possess in State B.
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 3 > ﾃつｧ 48
ﾃつｧ 48. Depiction of animal cruelty
(a) Creation, Sale, or Possession.ﾃ｢ 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.ﾃ｢ Subsection (a) does not apply to any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.
(c) Definitions.ﾃ｢ In this sectionﾃ｢
(1) the term ﾃ｢彭epiction of animal crueltyﾃ｢ 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; and
(2) the term ﾃ｢彜tateﾃ｢ means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
|
|
|
(as used in the original NRA article) and I'll get that salt and pepper out. If you consider crushing puppies underfoot or turning loose a pitbull on a penned domestic pig hunting, then yes, your sort of hunting would be covered by that law. I feel free to photograph pheasant hunters like the fellow depicted above, though I think I might stay closer to the hunting line than that photographer lest my lens be pockmarked by bird shot.