Site Sign-In
Today the US Supreme Court struck down a statute on First Amendment grounds that criminalized a lot of documentary filmmaking. Congress enacted a law to criminalize any depiction of any acts to animals in a film that results in the animals being killed or harmed, even if the activity on the screen is completely legal. Such a restriction would obviously cover hunting or fishing. The only requirement for prosecution was that the activity be illegal in the place that the film is possessed, exhibited or sold. Even though the act exempted serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for an 8-1 Court decision, held the statute to be “substantially overbroad and therefore invalid under the First Amendment.”
Your IDA, along with Film Independent (FIND), the Independent Feature Project (IFP) and the Independent Film and Television Alliance (IFTA), filed an Amicus Brief to help the Court understand the threat to documentary filmmakers. The case involved a documentary filmmaker by the name of Robert J. Stevens, who had included clips of a legal Japanese dog fight in a film he produced. The government did not argue that Stevens shot the film or was even present at the shoot. Since dog fighting is illegal in the United States, Stevens was arrested, tried and sentenced to 37 months in federal prison--a term longer than Michael Vick received for actually participating in dog fights in the United States. Whatever one might think of Mr. Stevens and his films, the threat to filmmakers had to be removed. That is when IDA stepped in.
The case was brilliantly argued before the Supreme Court by Patricia Millet from the Washington, DC office of Akin Gump law offices. Former IDA President Michael Donaldson organized IDA’s participation in the case and recruited Film Independent, IFP and IFTA to join. He was in attendance at the hearing in Washington and joined other counsel after for a lunch honoring Millet’s hard work as lead counsel. Like Donaldson, she rendered her services on a pro bono basis.
© 2013 International Documentary Association. All Rights Reserved.
That the IDA would support the graphic depiction of animals being killed and the selling of crush videos on the grounds that hunting and fishing documentaries would be effected is nothing short of moronic. The myopic views of the supreme court, the IDA and anyone else who supports the court's decision on the grounds of free speech is clearly unethical and wrong. Why do you not support the free speech rights of documentaries about child porn? Free speech is not the issue! The issue is mental illness. Anyone who kills a living creature for the purpose of entertainment (porn or otherwise) is NOT a properly functioning member of a civilized society. Do you want to live next door to someone who buys crush videos or dog fighting videos? Obviously not. So why support such an awful decision. I withdraw my membership to IDA.
I made a film set in the Loire Chateau region of France, set in the Renaissance.
One of my scenes, involves a hunt in the Forests.
I called the owner of Chateau Cheverny where, they hunt in the winter, in the forests that he owns, & asked him if I could film the Hunt for my film.
He said, "Yes, but there are people that are trying to shut down the hunt, so you must not film the animal being killed."
I agreed & flew over to France.
I filmed the Chase, & the finale, where the people that live in the villages, got to take the meat home.
I could not bear to see the animal killed, but this is how people survived.
(They did not buy their meat in a supermarket, & most were not vegetarians.)
I am not aware, that any of the Judges in the Supreme Court are vegetarians, as well.
I am an animal lover, & a vegetarian, & do think dog fights, or any cruelty to animals, should be illegal.
Please stop the hypocrisy on animals that are hunted to feed people.
Until people learn to live on amino acids from plant life, this is how they will survive.
Here, again, is the verbage: 'Congress enacted a law to criminalize any depiction of any acts to animals in a film that results in the animals being killed or harmed, even if the activity on the screen is completely legal.'
What hypocrisy.
Why not deal with the real issues, like unemployment, pollution, or how about the fact that our children have fallen down to #33 in the world of intelligence/grades?
Let's be productive & stay on issues that will help us to thrive.
God bless you all.
Regards
Bonnie
I made a film set in the Loire Chateau region of France, set in the Renaissance.
One of my scenes, involves a hunt in the Forests.
I called the owner of Chateau Cheverny where, they hunt in the winter, in the forests that he owns, & asked him if I could film the Hunt for my film.
He said, "Yes, but there are people that are trying to shut down the hunt, so you must not film the animal being killed."
I agreed & flew over to France.
I filmed the Chase, & the finale, where the people that live in the villages, got to take the meat home.
I could not bear to see the animal killed, but this is how people survived.
(They did not buy their meat in a supermarket, & most were not vegetarians.)
I am not aware, that any of the Judges in the Supreme Court are vegetarians, as well.
I am an animal lover, & a vegetarian, & do think dog fights, or any cruelty to animals, should be legal.
Please stop the hypocrisy on animals that are hunted to feed people.
Until people learn to live on amino acids from plant life, this is how they will survive.
Here, again, is the verbage: 'Congress enacted a law to criminalize any depiction of any acts to animals in a film that results in the animals being killed or harmed, even if the activity on the screen is completely legal.'
What hypocrisy.
Why not deal with the real issues, like unemployment, pollution, or how about the fact that our children have fallen down to #33 in the world of intelligence/grades?
Let's be productive & stay on issues that will help us to thrive.
God bless you all.
Regards
Bonnie
No one at IDA, and really no one in their right mind, is in "support" of crush videos, or of animal cruelty.
However, in the line of duty as journalists and documentarians, we must have the ability to capture 'reality' in order to comment upon it. Sadly, animal cruelty exists in this world whether a camera is fixed on it or not. And in legitimate films such as "Food, Inc" or even "Roger & Me," the camera captures cruelty to animals not to champion or support it - hardly - but to show us sadness, desperation, and bad judgment in vivid color. Killing people is wrong, too, but documentaries about war don't start wars nor glorify them - however, they can expose exactly what is wrong with killing people. It's difficult to make a statement about why something should change without exposing it as it is, for all to see. This applies to any difficult, and awful, subject which documentaries have painfully examined in order to reach a greater good - be it sexual abuse or genocide.
The law, as written, was broad enough to lump the makers of legitimate films in the same breath as exploitative criminals operating acting with menace on the fringes of society.
This victory in the Court serves to protect filmmakers and newsmakers - not to encourage cruelty or abomination. If anything, it will hopefully pave the way for another, better-written law, one that is more specific in distinguishing between sickening "entertainment" and legitimate news reporting and social commentary; the very hallmarks of good, investigative journalism.
Mr. Schmidt,
Your attempt to justify the exploitation of animal cruelty under the umbrella of "journalism" is grossly inappropriate. Comparing "Food, Inc." to a crush video is equally inappropriate and highly offensive. This case was about a scum bag named Robert Stevens who was illegally making and selling dog fighting videos. There was nothing journalistic or documentary about his actions. In light of the The Supreme Court's recent actions in which they have allowed political ideology to dictate their rulings, hiding this ruling under the 1st amendment while clearly disregarding morality and the illegality of dog fighting is disgraceful. I understand what the Supreme Court's function is intended to be (impartial interpretation of the law as it applies to the Constitution), but this ruling confirms that the Supreme Court is an outdated institution that is in desperate need of an overhaul. We the people find animal cruelty, crush videos and dog fighting and the people who participate in those activities to be unlawful. There are no freedom of speech or 1st amendment issues. It's as simple as that.
Thank you, Eddie and IDA, for taking on this project and for your work defending the 1st Amendment. I understand that it might seem at first glance that you are supporting exploitative media - but I also understand that blanket laws that prohibit freedom of expression are dangerous to a free society. It is sad and frustrating for me when people aren't able to understand this distinction, and get distracted by the barbarity of one (of the many) types of media being banned.
As I see it, the overturned ruling prohibited ALL documentation of animal cruelty - for any reason, including films attempting to STOP this activity. Your work is simply helping to maintain the free press we Americans are so proud of. As you so aptly put it, let's hope it will 'pave the way for another, better-written law," one that will target exploitative media without silencing the rest of us in the process.
I have a documentary about the killing of a pig (it includes hunting) but I filmed reality, I did not create those situations; as a filmmaker, I observe and take audio-visual notes. You can watch it (the short version) on www.onlinefilm.org and on www.alamdox.com (Other docs)
All the best for the filmmakers that feel free to observe the world.