A friend of mine, a professor at a university in another state, who has appeared on television radio and in the newspapers to support the alternative of contraception instead of hunting, was discussing with me her fear that she could no longer even go into a public park which was being hunted, as the law enforcement officers would likely conclude that she intended to interfere with hunting. These statutes are so vague, and so overbroad, that it is almost impossible to tailor your activities to avoid prosecution and criminal sanction under them if you are an opponent of hunting who speaks out in public where hunters are hunting. There are plenty of ways that the states can use the prohibitions against assault, disorderly conduct and riot, without gagging the speech of those opposed to hunting. However, under most hunter harassment statutes, any of these forms of conduct and expression would be prohibited. The hunter harassment statute prohibits the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights by seeking to deny access to public lands to anyone who wishes to have public debate regarding the morality of hunting.
Public property is the classic arena for political debate.
Just not about hunting, it seems. Thus, this statute, on its face, goes beyond content discrimination, to actual viewpoint discrimination. The statutes could be held to prohibit a lone protester from standing in a public park in total silence with a simple message on a small sign urging hunters to refrain from killing. When the act is done without the intent to harass the hunter, anyone can speak or express themselves in any manner as long as it does not violate any other statute. Such expressions of speech are not subject to the penalties of the hunter harassment statute.