There’s more to the life of a hunting outfitter/operator than chasing pigs and guiding clients.  Sometimes we have to get involved more deeply in the business and politics of our sport.   That’s why Native Hunt CEO, T. Michael Riddle is up in the land of the giants, Washington, DC, sitting in on a Supreme Court session.

For those who haven’t heard, there’s a fairly important case before the court right now, United States vs. Stevens.  In short, the case will determine whether the First Amendment protects writers, videographers, etc. from prosecution under a federal law restricting the sale of “depictions of animal cruelty”. 

Stevens was arrested and jailed in 2005 for the sale of videos that showed pit bulls fighting and being trained and used for hog hunting.  Despite the fact that Stevens had nothing to do with organizing the fights, did not participate, and did not even actually shoot the video, he was found guilty and sentenced to 37 months in prison.

The law in question was created to stop the reported proliferation of what they called, “Crush videos,” in which ladies in heels stepped on small animals.  This apparently appealed to a certain sexual fetish, and while I’m pretty sure these folks were a miniscule part of the general population, the resulting media coverage made it sound like there was an absolute flood of crush videos on the Internet.  As I understand it though, the first prosecution under this law was Stevens. 

On appeal, the conviction was overturned, but the battle has raged on up to now.  For a detailed history of the case, you can check it out on the SCOTUS wiki website.  You can also read about it in several other sources, including the NY Times. 

There are a lot of other articles and blogs about the case, along with a ton of misinformation and flat out lies.  For example, on the HSUS site, Stevens is described as a “dogfighter”, even though there is no evidence that he’s ever been involved in dogfights outside of research for his books and videos about raising and training Pit Bulldogs.  

In my brief weekend with Mr. Stevens down at the Native Hunt ranch, he told me flat out that not only does he not have anything to do with dogfighting, he’s generally opposed to the practice.  However, the history of the Pit Bull in dogfighting can tell us a lot about the tenacity, strength, and bravery of these animals.  An understanding of these traits is critical in understanding and training these dogs.  This is the point of view presented in his book, Dogs of Velvet and Steel, as well in several of the videos. 

The thing is, regardless of how you feel about dog fighting or pit bulls, the ramifications of this case go way beyond Bob Stevens.  The reason this is before the Supreme Court now, is because the law as it was initially interpreted presents a significant infringement on the First Amendment. 

If Stevens can be found guilty simply because his research and documentary videos show dogfighting (the fights in his videos actually take place legally, in Japan and Thailand… not in the US), does that mean that commercial media outlets covering things such as bullfighting (illegal in the US) will be breaking the law?  What about news outlets reporting on animal atrocities overseas?  And what about true entertainment, such as hunting television and videos? 

While this has much of the outdoor media (and other outlets as well… even the NY Times is supporting the defense) up in arms, some folks argue that the uproar is much ado about nothing.  They say there’s actually very little threat to legitimate media outlets from this law. 

And true enough, the law does offer an exception, to whit:

Subsection (a) does not apply to any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.

This is the argument used, so far successfully, by Stevens in his appeal, and it makes sense.  Unfortunately, the definition of “serious value” is pretty vague.  The prosecution in this case is arguing that Stevens’s work is entertainment only, and does not meet the requirements of the exception. 

Personally, as a non-lawyer, I can’t see how they got the initial conviction under this law,   but they did.  What’s more, the Supreme Court is taking this case seriously enough to address it in this case.  That tells me, as a simple layman, that there IS a potential threat to our Constitutional rights, and that this threat needs to be resolved clearly.  If it is not, we can rest assured that unscrupulous organizations, such as the HSUS, will find a way to use it against legitimate individuals and businesses again. 

I hope that when he gets back, Michael will have the time and energy to write about his role in this case (he’s done more than sit on the sidelines), and his personal take on the whole fiasco.