Why Should This Photo Be Illegal?

B

Bud Helms

Senior Member
From nrahuntersrights.org.

Why Should This Photo Be Illegal?

attachment.php


Imagine getting a great photograph of your hunting partner shooting at a pheasant, then finding out it’s illegal to possess that photo.

Imagine going to the video store to rent a copy of your favorite hunting show, only to find the shelves bare. When you ask the clerk where they are, he tells you that the films are now illegal and that you can’t buy or rent them anymore.

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 § 48) that bans depictions of animal cruelty.

If the law is upheld, it could mean unprecedented problems for the entire hunting, fishing and outdoor media industry.

“We have a history in this country of outdoor reporting of hunting and fishing, and this case could potentially eliminate hunting and fishing TV, and even your favorite outdoor magazine,” said Bill Miller, executive producer of North American Outdoors Television.

More ...
 

Attachments

  • cooneypheas.jpg
    cooneypheas.jpg
    100.5 KB · Views: 2,067
this case could potentially eliminate hunting and fishing TV, and even your favorite outdoor magazine,
Click to expand...

TV and magazines nothing. If shooting an animal can not be depicted because it's "animal cruelty" then HUNTING would be animal cruelty and instantly illegal, in and of itself.

As "1984-ish" as that sounds, I think that such reasoning is exactly why the court will not stand for it. They can not possibly eliminate hunting in the entire USA.
 
So possessing a photo of killing an animal meant to be food could be illegal, but killing for the purpose of providing food would be legal?

Imagine a world where possessing child pornography is illegal, but the act...

Utter nonsense.
 
I think the SCOTUS will rule logically here.... even Sotomayor will understand the difference between hunting and fighting dogs for money or starving horses or cats out of slothfulness. OTOH, I wonder how it is that the highest court in the land has agreed to hear this case.
 
Well, this ranks right up there on the Stupid-O-Meter with a lot of the things our government has been up to lately. I heard about some bill the other day that would make it illeagle for you or me to grow and eat produce from our backyard... :rolleyes:. Makes me sick :barf:

Hopefully the SCOTUS will show the world it's still one of the respectable institutions in the US Government.

I can't wait 'til 2012.
 
How about pictures of people in any restaurant eating any animal product?

It's got the potential to be very sweeping in its implications.
 
We get what we get when we elect the wrong people what more can I say. There have been more than a few times when laws were created to apply to a particular issue but were then broaden by court interpretations.

Everybody wants a law against something but they never realize how far that law can extend. I have always said wouldn't it be great if we could make a full year without any new laws passed. I didn't elected by Senator or Congressman to make new laws every month, but they all do.

Lets see how the court rules.
 
Nonsense. We have the best senators and congressmen that money can buy. But anyway, what do you expect them to do? Making laws is what they are there for. An appropriations bill is a law, in this sense.
 
We have the best senators and congressmen that money can buy
Click to expand...

Boy have you got that right! Unfortunately, we're supposed to have the best REPRESENTATION that money CAN'T buy.

You're right though, nearly all of them are bought and paid for.
 
How about the menu photo depicting the cruelly obtained organs from suffering animals? Or those purchase inducing images swinging in the A/C breeze from the ceiling of your favorite meat dept.? You know... the ones of slabs of muscle hacked from a suffering DEAD steer!:barf:
Brent
 
That would make it illegal for animal rights activists to shoot undercover video in slaughterhouses. It would be illegal to document animal cruelty anywhere with video and a crime to possess such documentation. I wonder if they thought of that?
 
Well, usually the NRA hypes stuff a bit; and this case is no difference. The statute in question is 18 USC Sec. 48 which makes it a crime to create, sell or possess a "depiction of animal cruelty" with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate commerce for commercial gain.

A "depiction of animal cruelty" is any photo, sound, video, etc. 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.

So, shooting a pheasant - not illegal under State or Federal law and therefore not a depiction of animal cruelty. Selling a picture of poaching however, would apparently be a five-year federal felony. And apparently so would publishing a photo of bear hunting in a state where bear hunting is illegal... as laws go, this one was really poorly drafted.

If you are interested, the actual case and Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision can be found here:
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052497p.pdf
 
G'day.
Don't you know that without pictures of somthing then it never happens. I have seen dogs being draged by their leash, isn't that being cruel to the dog? So any picture of an animal on a lead would be against the law. What about the poor chicken in the small cage, would that make images of cages ( including pet transport boxes) illegal? Some animals don't like to get wet, so pictures that show water would also be illegal.
 
Bartholomew's post says it all.

A photo or video of legal hunting isn't covered by the law. Lord only knows where the NRA gets this stuff...you'd think they'd have enough actual issues on their plate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top