Posted on 05/14/2002 6:18:39 AM PDT by LurkedLongEnough
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) _ The state Supreme Court ruled Monday that a law designed to prevent animal rights activists from interfering with hunters or fishermen does not violate the First Amendment.
The hunter harassment law prohibits people from standing in the line of fire, harassing hunters or attempting to affect wildlife behavior with smells, sights or sounds designed to hinder hunters.
The case dates back to 1991, when a group of anti-hunting activists followed a bow hunter into a state forest in Hartland on the first day of archery season.
As the hunter drew his bow, they formed a semicircle around him and refused to get out of his line of fire. A conservation officer arrested the protesters when they refused to leave the park.
The activists argued that by suppressing their anti-hunting protests, the hunter harassment law violated their rights to free speech and assembly. The defendants also argued the law treated them unfairly because other groups, including religious ones, were allowed to use the parks for various ceremonies and gatherings.
Kathleen Eldergill, the attorney for the protesters, said the statute is written so broadly that a hunter could claim that anyone else in the woods, no matter if they were standing in the line of fire or just waiting in hopes of meeting up with hunters, was interfering with their hunting.
``The way it's written and enforced, it really does seem to leave the forest in control of hunters,'' said Eldergill.
In a 5-0 ruling, the Supreme Court judges said the law did not infringe on free speech and assembly because the forests where hunting is allowed are not intended for public assembly and do not contain facilities for public interaction.
``Like mailboxes and airports, the mere fact that state forests and undeveloped state parks are appealing locations for those seeking to convey a message does not make them public fora,'' Chief Justice William Sullivan wrote in the opinion.
The high court drew a distinction between undeveloped parks and developed ones such as Greenwich Point, a beach that was the center of a recent state Supreme Court decision. In that ruling, the court said the beach functioned much as a town common or municipal park, and therefore was a public forum.
The court also said activists have other means of protesting hunting, including speaking to hunting groups and buying advertising to spread their message.
``The defendants in the present case have had their speech restricted only to the degree necessary to prevent interference with taking game,'' Sullivan wrote. ``That they therefore must fend for themselves in the marketplace of ideas does not give rise to a First Amendment violation.''
The court ruled that the statute was narrowly drawn and that the state had significant interests _ public safety, managing the wildlife population and raising revenue _ in enacting the hunter harassment law.
The state argued that hunting helps manage the animal population and raises several million dollars a year from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses.
The state also argued that the law increases public safety by reducing contact between activists and hunters who are about to fire guns and bows, as well as reducing the number of collisions between cars and deer.
I like this phrase, and the irony of the case. Too often liberals use the courts and the legal system to carry out their plans, because they know that if they had to present their philosophies to the general public in the "marketplace of ideas", they would be rejected and lose.
Ah, a dog is a pig is a rat is a boy? All life forms are equal? My baby daughter is no more, or less important than a pig on a farm?
But why stop at a respect for animal life? Do the plants that you yank out of the ground not weep? How can you condemn that radish to an existance of growth, just to be eaten ALIVE! Where is your respect for ALL forms of life?
The meat goes into the freezer. You would be happier if the head went out with the garbage?
"As the hunter drew his bow, they formed a semicircle around him and refused to get out of his line of fire."
LOL! Wonder what would happen if they were to try a stunt like that here in Texas!
(Sheriff:)"Dang, I don't think I've ever seen a case of suicide by bow 'n' arrow before!"
I'm pro-hunting and anti-abortion. The ethics rise from the same source--a respect for life.
You see, abortion is slaying a human out of convenience - i.e.: murder. The act does nothing to enhance or further life. Continued discussion of this point is unnecessary.
Hunting, however, is primarily done for the continuation of life. One being consuming another to survive is plainly a part of the cycle of life. Whether you believe creatures are created by God or by evolution, some species are designed to consume others. Hunters revere life, keenly aware that the price of their own existance is the life of other beings. True trophy hunters are rare; most hunt for the experience of being directly involved in the cycle of life. By hunting, one's "environmental footprint" is reduced significantly: instead of devestating a plot of land for one's own use and depriving the rest of nature of that land, the hunter barely touches an environment and leaves it unchanged but for the removal of a single animal; with diligence, the hunter's environmental impact is imperceptable.
Voluntary vegitarianism (particularly veganism) is an anomoly made possible only by a scientifically advanced culture built on an omnivorous social structure. Separated from the reality of food consumption, most vegitarians are unaware of the price of their existance as supported by an infrastructure of stores and factories - particularly to obtain those few vital protiens & vitamins which are available only via meat sources or environmentally costly artificial synthesis. The vegitarian increases one's "environmental footprint" by wiping out a section of the environment, rendering it practically unusable by other animals and devestating the used area which will take long to recover.
Most hunters do so to participate direcly in pervasive and normal natural activity, continuing life cycles with practically no impact on the environment. Vegitarians artificially remove themselves from the cycle of life, deny life-sustaining activities which they were designed for, increase their long-term environmental impact, and practically require an industrial farming infrastructure to obtain artificially-sourced nutrients vital to human survival.
As he whispered very slowly, "...whatever you do.........don't move." as the steel shaft flashed past the terror stricken head of the defecating harasser.
Sounds like something Dirty Harry would say. ):
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.