I would like to start off by saying that I have been a fan of your mag for a little over a year. I love the reviews and tips offered.
However, In the July 2010 issue I noticed something really disturbing to me. On page 10 Thomas McDonald discussed the United States vs. Stevens Supreme Court Case.
In that short articled he had stated that he was surprised the Supreme Court ruled that "Crush" videos and dog fighting videos were protected by free speech. But, he failed to mention that that was not at all the situation with Robert Steven's case. He made this man look like a monster that produces and sells these horrible videos. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The only reason that case was debated was because Stevens was a man who had made a documentary about dog fighting. He did not film or participate in any dog fights, he was simply showing the history. Even though he had no association with any of the fights in his film he was locked away due to this open ended law.
Under this same law it would be illegal to show hunting shows in certain states as well as sell magazines discussing hunting certain game in some states. This law had been enforced way beyond it's original scope and that, my friends, was the basis for this Supreme Court decision.
It is disgusting to me to see such a misrepresentation of the facts. Mr. McDonald made this man look like a horrible person when, in fact, he was only making an educational film.
I do not condone senseless acts of brutality towards any creature. I also do not condone twisted truths to make a point. It would have been nice for Mr. McDonald to at least allocate one sentence to state the actual argument in this case.