« Law - Public Records: "How to Bury a Secret: Turn It Into Paperwork" | Main | Courts - The upshot on: Kentucky Supreme Court carries out records purge »

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Ind. Decisions - More on "Court tosses challenge to hunter harassment law"

The First Amendment Center has picked up the AP version of the hunter harassment law story, posted here on Jan. 18th by the ILB. But the Center adds links to related stories from 1999 where both New Jersey and Illinois appeals courts upheld hunter harassment laws, and to a story from 2002 headlined "Connecticut high court deals blow to anti-hunting activists." Here is some interesting language from the 2002 AP story:

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, the activists 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.

Recall that according to the coverage of the Indiana case, "Hunters taking part in a town-authorized deer cull in 2001 complained to police that the Shugers drove down a Beverly Shores road honking their car horn and allowing their dog to bark out the window."

Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 23, 2007 07:36 AM
Posted to Environment | Ind. App.Ct. Decisions