Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
(View past Libertarian pings here)
Posted on 10/06/2009 5:28:12 AM PDT by marktwain
NEWTOWN, Conn. — With the U.S. Supreme Court slated to hear arguments Tuesday in the United States v. Stevens, No. 08-769, the National Shooting Sports Foundation encourages the court to support the First Amendment rights of all media to show images of hunting and fishing. The case centers around a 1999 federal statute used to prosecute a Virginia man on animal cruelty-related charges that because it is so broadly written could similarly be used to prosecute anyone who publishes images of hunting or to prosecute retailers for stocking and selling books, DVDs or art depicting hunting scenes.
"The National Shooting Sports Foundation and its over 4,500 member companies oppose animal cruelty, which is illegal in every state, and stress that hunting scenes are not representative of criminal behavior. Hunting is a legitimate, licensed activity, and responsible hunters respect the animals they pursue and utilize," said Steve Sanetti, president of NSSF. "Such images assist novices with basic hunting and field dressing techniques and provide education about wildlife conservation and safe and ethical hunting."
In the 2004 case, the defendant was initially convicted, but the decision was later overturned by the Third Court of Appeals, which struck down the federal statute as a violation of the First Amendment. In a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Stevens's position, NSSF said the federal criminal statute "is unconstitutionally overbroad, because it criminalizes free speech protected by the First Amendment. [The statute] was enacted to combat animal cruelty. NSSF abhors animal cruelty and the unethical taking of game. The broad language of the statute, however, criminalizes lawful speech and, in the process, chills lawful commerce in that speech."
(Excerpt) Read more at sports.espn.go.com ...
This criminalization of everything under the sun has got to stop. My aunt could be arrested and prosecuted under this moonbat law if her interior decorator daughter permitted a home magazine to publish a fox and hounds hunt scene she has in her living room.
This is one of those crazy things you think could never happen. Like an elderly man spending 2 years in jail after a SWAT team finds “illegally” imported orchids. orchids!
Trouble is, of course, that many millions of people who find no cruelty at all in the notion of sticking a needle in an unborn baby’s skull and sucking out his/her brain, find the thought of a seasonal cull of wildlife - so that the animals won’t die slowly of starvation in winter - objectionable.
They don’t mind death in the slightest - heaven forbid they be deprived of their filet mignon at the dinner table - they just like to think of Bambi, out there in the woods, as living a carefree, fairy tale, life with the birdies and the butterflies... sorta like a talking baby.
Well, a talking baby who escaped the abortionist, anyway.
Modern life in a nutshell - and I do mean ‘nut.’
I wonder if this case could have an impact on the NFL or MLB and their right to control “the pictures, descriptions and accounts of this game”?
Is THAT animal cruelty footage "ok" because it is used to shut down activity? Even in an entertainment setting?
The Butthole Surfers show footage of eyeball and genital surgery at their concerts but it doesn't seem to be for educational purposes.
I have pictures of what my .30-06 did to a prairie dog that they probably wouldn’t like much.
The same argument is used against pornography.
You cannot be consistent and for one but against the other based on the outcome you want.
Geez, talk about overkill.
Yeah, well... It worked. :-)
Three of 'em lined up for me.
(It's currently the only rifle I own.)
That's the problem with empowering the government to protect us from being offended. It seems like everything is offensive to some group, so eventually everything becomes subject to criminal prohibition.
Better to restrict the government to preventing more substantial harms, instead of giving it the power to squash anything that might make someone uncomfortable.
Why isn’t the VS tv network shut down? I call VS the animal killing channel.
I assumed it was a only-rifle-I-had-with-me or first-one-I-grabbed type situation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.