» US v Stevens case poses serious threat to freedom of expression
While proponents of Section 48 emphasise that the only depictions it penalises are those showing the intentional killing or wounding of an animal that is illegal where the conduct occurred or where the depiction is possessed or sold, that limitation is far less limiting than meets the eye. Bullfighting, for example, is illegal throughout the US. Accordingly, an illustrated edition of Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises could run afoul of the law if the illustrations, be they photographs or drawings, depict actual bullfights. That bullfights are legal in Spain is irrelevant under the law.
Moreover, for a depiction to be criminalised by Section 48, the killing or wounding need only be illegal under some law or other. It need not violate a law against animal cruelty. Given the disparate nature of state laws in the US federalist system, this means that many depictions of conduct that is perfectly legal where it occurs and not universally condemned as an instance of animal cruelty will be criminalised by Section 48. For example, Washington, DC, bans all hunting. Thus, if a video depicting a deer hunt that took place in Pennsylvania, where deer hunting is allowed, were sold in Washington, DC, the seller would be subject to prosecution under Section 48 unless the video’s depiction possessed “serious” value.
I have said it before, this is a slippery slope. Too many loop holes, and too dire of consequences for breaking the proposed law.
