Amazon.com supports animal fighting!

[AZBlue]

"Just as the federal government and law enforcement agencies across the country are cracking down on illegal animal fighting, Amazon.com seems to be digging in its heels to do exactly the opposite.

Selling publications teeming with advertisements for upcoming cockfights, cockfighting tools and fighting-cock breeders—specifically two magazines called The Gamecock and The Feathered Warrior—Amazon.com is violating not just common decency but also federal law."



More here: http://www.hsus.org/hsus_field/animal_fighting_the_final_round/recent_activities/amazoncom_summary.html


Please tell Amazon.com just what you think of their policies here:
https://community.hsus.org/campaign/US_2007_amazon_fighting3
or here:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/contact-us/general-questions.html/103-1256118-8523009?ie=UTF8&nodeId=&type=cs-nav-email&jsEnabled=enabled&skip=true

And boycott them until they change their ways!

[CountAllVotes]

1. K&R

:wow: I had NO idea! I won't be buying anything else from amazon.com until they change their policies and attitudes re: animal fighting! :mad:

:kick:

[AZBlue]

2. Thank you! I was shocked too!!

I almost bought something from them just yesterday!

[CountAllVotes]

3. the DU has a link to amazon.com

I suggest that the DU admins. remove that link!

:grr: :argh:

:kick:

[hippiechick]

4. Buggers!

:mad: Boo on Amazon!! :mad:

[personman]

5. Ugh.

I just recently opened an astore to resell books through them. I posted about this in their little special "associates" forum... we'll see what happens, if anything.

http://forums.prosperotechnologies.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=am-associhelp&msg=19307.1&ctx=0

Not sure if you can view this without an account or not.

Edit: Course, if they don't care what the humane society says, they won't care what I say. Maybe some of the other associates will, if the post isn't deleted before anyone sees it.

-personman

[blondeatlast]

25. Are you aware of ALibris and Powell's?

When I worked in Collection Development at the library ALibris was our exclusive out-of-print book source. They are a rapidly growing business and resellers seemed to be happy with theiur service (as we were).
Powell' is another great source; I highly recommend them.

http://www.powells.com/
http://www.alibris.com/

[cui bono]

6. Animal fighting... ugh.

I have a pit bull and used to have her brother until he passed away and they are the sweetest things, so full of love and so affectionate. It breaks my heart to think what would have happened to them in the wrong hands. And the people I adopted them from said all the calls they were getting were asking them if they were agressive. They were only 7 weeks old at the time. :(

[Pooka Fey]

7. Done. As if Amazon.com isn't profitable enough

without promoting this abomination. Sickening.

[tmlanders]

8. I just sent them an email and told them that I would not buy

anything else from Amazon.com until they stop selling those magazines.

[byronius]

9. Never underestimate corporate stupidity.

Most Amazon customers will bolt when they discover this. Readers aren't generally troglodytic assholes.

Oops. Bet they change their minds when they run the numbers.

[Drifter]

10. Oh Gad ...

fer christ sakes.

Do you honestly believe that Amazon "Supports" this stuff ?
I would tend to guess that what they support is selling books for a profit.

Cheers
Drifter

[shireen]

11. this really upsets me

...

Mr. Bezos, I have been a loyal customer for many years and am deeply disappointed to hear that your company is selling publications that encourage animal fighting. It is cruel. You may excuse it as a freedom of speech issue, but if that's the reasoning you adopt, you might as well be selling child pornography and pro-NAZI literature.

[RoyGBiv]

12. High Times

Yeah, Amazon sells subscriptions to High Times as well. Many people consider the practices advocated there as immoral, and those practices are certainly illegal almost everywhere -- get you prison time even.

That's what I really want in a bookstore, actually. Rid the shelves of anything and everything that *might* offend me. Certainly I don't want anything there that talks about illegal or immoral activities ... by my standards of course.

[personman]

14. I don't think it's an apt comparison

For one thing, smoking pot doesn't leave another living being wounded and dieing.

If you believe in basic rights such as freedom of expression, then you believe that our rights end where the rights of others begin.
Hate Speech is not protected for precisely that reason.

So the question is, is it hateful to advocate forcing two living creatures that are incapable of real consent, to fight each other to the death?

I think so.

[mondo joe]

15. Actually, hate speech IS protected speech.

Hate crimes penalize actions.

[personman]

19. Hmmph...shit.

This still stinks though, the animals have no voice.

[RoyGBiv]

22. PETA Animal Times

Amazon sells subscriptions to that too.

Want to make a statement? Purchase a subscription to that for you and a friend.

OnEdit:

Link: http://www.amazon.com/PETA-Animal-Times/dp/B0001FAX2E/ref=pd_bbs_3/002-0118411-1772837?ie=UTF8&s=magazines&qid=1181340889&sr=8-3

Many publications with ASPCA sponsorship are also offered by Amazon.

[RoyGBiv]

17. That is not the question ...

The issue, as initially presented complete with the claim of this violating federal law, is the publication and selling of a magazine that advocates an illegal/immoral activity.

The use of "hate speech" as a point of contention in this context is an absurdity.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. You're both bringing up good points.

I think we can all agree that dog fighting is immoral, and smoking weed is not. So it's perfectly fine to, say, boycott Amazon over this on moral issues.

Now, legality. I do believe it's perfectly legal to sell books that promote unlawful acts- High Times, the Anarchist's Cookbook, yes even NAMBLA tracts. I do believe, however, there's a legal line crossed when you actual are involved with scheduling and planning crimes, i.e. scheduling dog fights. That becomes criminal conspiracy, does it not?

[RoyGBiv]

150. Legality *is* the issue ...

At least we seem to be able to agree on that point. Truly whether I or anyone else thinks smoking weed or cockfighting is immoral is beside the point. You will always be able to find someone who believes with all their soul that this or that or another thing is immoral and should not even be talked about, much less have a publication dedicated to it. That's the *reason* I advocate a purist line on issues of censorship. I cannot claim my own moral compass should be the deciding factor in what does and does not get published or distributed to the public, just as, for example, David Duke should not get to decide using his moral compass.

But there is the legality issue, and that's where this thing in particular gets twitchy. Cockfighting is *not* illegal everywhere. Therefore scheduling and planning events is not an issue of legality that can be used to argue the publication should not be sold or distributed. (If the magazine is being used to schedule events in areas where it clearly is illegal, that's another thing, and I must admit here I know nothing of this magazine and have no desire to go find one. But, if that is the problem, the issue should be raised with authorities and/or the publisher. As far as Amazon is concerned, they are a book/magazine/etc. seller and do and should offer anything that is legal to print.)

One could take a hard-line state's rights position on this and argue that Amazon (or more properly stated the publisher of the magazine) should not be allowed to sell in certain states, but if we go that route, then we get into other gray areas as well. If late term abortion is illegal in your state, should I be allowed to distribute a book or magazine that discusses it, advocates it, even tells you how to go about getting it done safely?

These are not questions with clear answers unless one takes the approach that ideas are beyond censorship, which I do. I may and do despise certain ideas and certain words and certain expressions, but legally, relegating certain ideas or words to the dustbin of the forbidden because we don't happen to like them endangers all ideas, words, etc. If Amazon should be boycotted because it offers a subscription to this magazine, then those who advocate this have absolutely not one logical complaint to offer if the pro-cockfighting people try to prevent Amazon from selling PETA publications. For each group, the other is "wrong" in a moral sense, and the law is, or should be, there to protect both groups, and logical consistency dictates that if I want my ideas protected and presented, I must suck it up and allow opposing ideas also to be protected and presented.

[AZBlue]

140. Oh please.

No comparison. If you choose to smoke pot, that's your choice. And, it's not usually deadly.

You're going to have to try again.

[RoyGBiv]

152. No, you try again ...

You're talking about issues of legality and made the outlandishly absurd claim that Amazon is doing this in violation of federal law. Back that up, please.

The basis of your complaint, as originally presented, is that the practice of cockfighting is both immoral and illegal and any publication about it should not be distributed to the public. On that basis, one can quite clearly argue _High Times_ should be cause for boycott because a sizable proportion of the population thinks it is immoral to smoke pot, and the practices advocated in that magazine are *clearly* illegal in every state. Many of its ads flirt with violating federal law too.

So, I must ask, are you taking back your assertion that the legality of the practice is a factor?

[peacebaby3]

154. Federal Animal Welfare Act. n/t

[RoyGBiv]

155. Try again ...

You're not getting off that easy.

Apply it to the case of this magazine being published.

I could name a dozen federal laws off the top of my head that make illegal certain practices, and at the same time I could offer up publications that advocate those practices, e.g. marijuana cultivation and use.

So, again, if this magazine should not be distributed, would you agree that _High Times_ should not be sold? If not, why not, and in your answer please provide clear, legal reasoning.

OnEdit:

Here's the text of that act: http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/awa.htm

Show me, specifically, what part of it makes the publication a violation of Federal law.

Hint: the section you're looking for is 7 U.S.C. 2155. Apply that to this magazine, using examples, please.

[peacebaby3]

156. The federal Animal Welfare Act expressly and specifically prohibits use of the U.S. mail service for

"promoting" or "in any other manner furthering" animal fighting.

Amazon is an online bookstore and it's the only place that carries it.

You and three other posters on this thread decided to turn this into a "free speech" issue instead of the original issue of promoting animal cruelty through a publication in the mail.

You also note in another post that you believe in the practice of originalism and texualism so you must love Scalia and Renquist, huh? Just curious. I'm more of a Warren Court, developmentalist myself so I doubt we are going to agree on what "free speech" does and does not cover and whether the growth and change in society plays a role in current interpretation of the law.

Nice knowing you!

[RoyGBiv]

160. Nice edit ...

Why don't you quote what the law actually says? Why do you need to selectively edit out certain parts that just might pertain to this publication?

And, uh, no, you can get the publication from the publisher.

As to your other point, I used the term "purist" on matters of censorship. That is neither an "originalist" nor "textualist" position, nor is it an expression of constitutional theory. It is an expression of a purist position on the matter of what may be properly censored, irrespective of the Constitution.

[NobleCynic]

189. It's not actually that dishonest of an edit.

The law is quite poorly written, and most likely would not survive a serious first amendment / states rights challenge. It quite literally bans promoting or even talking positively about cockfighting over the phone, the radio, the telegraph, and the television. Because of its age, it omits the internet however.

Full Text here:
http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/pl94279.htm

[NobleCynic]

13. Probably an honest mistake

They have so many titles, I can't imagine they check each one individually.

[AZBlue]

141. No mistake. Read on:

"For at least two years, Amazon.com has been infamously—and incorrectly—touting its "right" to sell materials promoting illegal animal fighting, blatantly peddling dogfighting videos as well as cockfighting magazines like The Gamecock and The Feathered Warrior.

Amazon.com seems so determined to profit from illegal animal fighting that, rather than simply drop its sales of animal fighting materials, it has filed a motion against The HSUS in federal court, essentially asking that federal and state laws to protect animals be gutted to accommodate Amazon.com's sales of animal fighting paraphernalia."

[NobleCynic]

186. My mistake then

I apologize for not having read through fully.

On further reflection, I can't imagine they make that much money off of such products. I'm hard pressed to imagine that profit from these magazines is the primary motivation here. There is a valid first amendment argument in here somewhere. After all, if it's legal to sell and purchase Mein Kampf, it is difficult to justify complete censorship of just about anything.

Their reasoning is probably something along the line of: If you open the door to banning the sale of such publications, you open the door to banning any publication for any reason.

The profit they receive from these publications can't be all that significant, I think they're making a stand on principle.

In which case, as much distaste as I have for the practice of cockfighting, I have to respect the principle behind their decision. Claiming a book or magazine to be paraphenelia is a dangerous precedent with many implications beyond the issue of animal rights. Taken to its logical extreme, it leads to the arrest of anyone owning a copy of Tom Wolfe's "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test" for drug use. Or anyone owning a copy of the Koran for terrorism.

First Amendment issues aside, Amazon is operating in blatant violation of the intent of the law, if not the wording of the law as well. That said, the law may or may not be on Amazon's side here. The suit the HSUS is bringing against Amazon rests on subsection c of section 26 of the Animal Welfare Acts Amendment of 1976:

"(c) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly use the mail service of the United States Postal Service or any interstate instrumentality for purposes of promoting or in any other manner furthering an animal fighting venture except as performed outside the limits of the States of the United States."

As defined in the Animal Welfare Act "interstate instrumentality" does not include the internet, which is a particularly glaring omission as what it does list includes television, radio, telephone, and telegraph. It then comes down to whether or not Amazon ships these publications via private carrier or the US Postal Service. If they ship using the USPS, then they are indeed in violation of the act as written. Of course, the judge could rule that the intent of the act was to include all interstate communications, and thus introduce the internet into the scope of the act.

[NobleCynic]

188. But lastly

There are strong states rights issues for the court to consider as well. Cockfighting is legal in some places. Is it constitutional to prevent discussion of it altogether in states where it is not legal? I see Amazon winning this on both the states rights and first amendment issues. Even if they are in violation of the law as written, the constitutionality of the law itself is fragile.

They'll probably win the case. But you have the right approach. Making it too costly in terms of bad publicity to continue supporting the magazine is probably the only realistic course of action available.

[mondo joe]

16. Question: if they are violating federal law, why use a boycott? Why not simply

seek enforcement of the law?

[AZBlue]

142. I'd like to see both!

[Matariki]

18. They are selling the printed word - not animals for fighting.

And you are advocating a sort of censorship.

[AZBlue]

143. So you support no boycotts whatsoever of anyone?

I mean, that's censorship!
:sarcasm:

[peacebaby3]

20. I wrote to Amazon about this over 2 months ago and never even received a reply.

Until enough people become outraged and boycott the company, they aren't even going to acknowledge it.

I haven't and won't be buying anything from them again.

Whoever compared selling "High Times" to magazines that promote torture of animals is an idiot.

[Matariki]

21. And maybe christians will start a boycott to get them to stop selling Harry Potter books?

I guess censorship is okay when it's an issue one cares about personally?

[peacebaby3]

23. Not the same...one supports torture and cruelty...the other doesn't.

It's pretty simple.

Then again, maybe they should go ahead and sell child pornography too. Amazon wouldn't actually be molesting the children so we shouldn't be for censorship. :sarcasm:

[Judi Lynn]

26. Not too hard to grasp, is it? My god. n/t

[RoyGBiv]

27. So?

By that measure, the Christian bible should be pulled from the shelves, unless of course actual rules and instructions for torturing and killing entire populations of people is okay.

The CP comment is a non sequitur, one typically used by those seeking to advocate the banning of any old idea they don't like.

[peacebaby3]

28. In order for someone to produce a magazine related to dog or cock

fighting or child pornography, they would have either participated or received the material from someone who did participate, therefore supporting the practice of torture and cruelty.

The chapters of the bible were written thousands of years ago and if Amazon sold a "how-to" magazine on crucifixion and had pictures of current crucifixions that happened in today's society, then yes, I would be opposed to that as well.

If they are selling a magazine on the history of dog fighting and the fact that it is illegal, it would be different, but these are magazines that promote it as a "sport."

If you can't see the difference in the two, then there is no point in having any discussion with you.

Edit: spelling

[RoyGBiv]

29. So, you would agree ...

... with the hypothetical I offered earlier? High Times magazine should be banned or at least Amazon boycotted because it sells it, yes?

The Christian bible has rules and instructions that are advocated by millions today as "the infallible word of God" that should be followed to the letter, .e.g. public stonings, advocacy of genocide, etc. Crucifixion is the least of it.

In any case if you do not believe that _High Times_ magazine should be banned, then provide me with the legal and logical basis for your opinion.

CP is still a non sequitur and unhelpful to this discussion.

But, since you want to use that fallacy, here's another to chew on. If a substantial proportion of citizens believe that a publication should be banned, not sold, or its distributors subjected to sanction, is that okay with you? If so, then you would support the notion that the Federal mail should have been instructed not to deliver anti-slavery tracts in the South during the antebellum era. (As I said, it's a non sequitur, but you're using the same device, so I wanted to play too.)

[peacebaby3]

31. If a living creature has to be tortured and killed to create "High Times"

then I'm all for banning it!

Since the Bible doesn't come out with a new edition every month or so, I don't think that in order for it to be published that anyone has to commit genocide, crucifixion, etc.

It would be the exact opposite. I would certainly want the federal mail to not only NOT deliver, but report to authorities any literature that is mailed openly that promotes slavery and writes stories about people that currently own slaves, a "how-to" kidnap and keep a slave without the authorities finding out using real examples and photos, etc. Anti-slavery would have been to stop torture and killing, not promote it.

[Matariki]

33. I would agree with you about selling photographs of a banned or illegal activity

such as cockfighting (or child pornography). Photographs or video require the actual thing in itself.

What I can't agree with is a ban of the written word. I don't care how distasteful I personally may find the material, people's thoughts and words are not the same as acting those things out and banning free expression is NOT a good thing.

[Colobo]

38. Cock fighting is legal pretty much around the world except here

It's a Hispanic tradition of more than 300 years.

[Matariki]

40. Good point. Maybe any references to bullfighting should also be boycotted

I think there were some old bugs bunny cartoons...

Let's write to Warner Brothers.

[Colobo]

42. LOL! Good point.

[peacebaby3]

47. Big difference in a cartoon and Amazon selling a video of a dog fighting

which they just recently pulled.

One is real...one isn't.

And yes, bull fighting is a cruel sport.

[Matariki]

50. I don't disagree with you.

about the difference between a cartoon and an actual video.

I'm undecided about bull fighting.

[peacebaby3]

54. Ah, so that makes it ok.

Slavery is still acceptable in some parts of the world too. So is female genitalia mutilation, and honor killings, bullfighting, throwing a goat off a tower, etc., etc., etc. Just because it is a tradition in some countries, doesn't mean it is acceptable or legal behavior here.

Actually, here is the U.S. there is the federal Animal Welfare Act which expressly and specifically prohibits use of the U.S. mail service for "promoting" or "in any other manner furthering" animal fighting.

I think that makes it pretty clear.

[Colobo]

58. To compare slavery, female genitalia mutilation and honor killings with cock fights

is absolutely ridiculous, and by the way, Puerto Rico is part of the US and cockfights are not only legal, but also subsidized by the government, with taxpayer's money. :)

[peacebaby3]

70. Maybe in your opinion. I think it's ridiculous to argue that because

something that is cruel is tradition in certain countries makes it ok!

Oh good, thanks for letting me know that about Puerto Rico, I'll be contacting all of the US animal protection organizations regarding that matter. There are some definite differences between what constitutes a US territory rather than a state, but if they fall under federal US law, hopefully, legally they will have to follow the federal Animal Welfare Act!

[Colobo]

74. Good luck; you'll need it. :)

[peacebaby3]

78. Thanks! n/t

[HardRocker05]

181. i'm sorry, when you base any defense on 'tradition' it's a pretty safe bet you're on weak ground. nt

[HardRocker05]

180. well, if it's tradition, it can't possibly be wrong. why didn't i think of that? nt

[RetroLounge]

207. You are honestly going use "tradition" as a defense?

What utter bullshit...

I believe you may wanna look deeper at some of those traditions, like stealing countries for the queen, rape murder and pillaging, etc.

:eyes:

RL

[cui bono]

163. I'd almost be for pulling the christian bible. It is seriously hurting our country.

There has been protests against it:
http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2007/05/20/hong-kong-from-indecent-student-magazine-to-indecent-bible/

[Matariki]

32. See what i mean? For you, your issue is the 'real' one and justifies censorship.

Well to the crazy right wing Chistians, they believe with all their heart and soul that Harry Potter is leading children to Satan and to them that is far, far worse than chickens fighting.

Or the anti-choice people believe that killing fetuses is far, far worse than chickens fighting.

You are arguing a slippery slope my friend.

[peacebaby3]

34. If you are ok with torture and killing of living, breathing creatures to

publish a monthly magazine, then so be it.

So far, I haven't heard where any person or animal was tortured or killed in order for a Harry Potter book to hit the shelves...but you never know, huh? A tree probably had to die somewhere along the line though!

That's where I draw my line and I will do everything within my power to stop torture and killing of animals (and people). If to you that means I believe in censorship and that my issue is the only "real" one, I don't really care.

[Matariki]

41. That's what the right wing christians say about fetuses

and they believe it with all their hearts.

[peacebaby3]

44. Yea...so I must be just like them...whatever. n/t

[Matariki]

46. well think about it. how are you different than they are?

you think magazines writting about cockfighting should be banned because you think it's cruel

they think abortions should be banned because it's murder.

How are you being not like them as far as wanting to impose your own sense of right and wrong onto others? How is it different?

[peacebaby3]

56. Did you read the link? The magazines have actually been investgated. n/t

[Iris]

90. Well, for one thing, no one is betting and making tens of thousands of dollars off of one abortion.

Nor are they filming it and selling it as entertainment.

[cui bono]

164. They also believe Jesus rode on a dinosaur and the earth is only 6000

years old. Just because they believe things that are fantastical doesn't make their argument equal to this one. We are talking about an illegal activity, you are bringing up legal activities and fantasy. I should think you can see how far fetched your argument is.

[HardRocker05]

182. so you're denying that animals are living, thinking, feeling creatures? or are you just being delib

deliberately dense to pull people's chains?

[RoyGBiv]

134. Succintly stated and to the point ...

Truly I do not believe much else needs to be said. Of course it *will* be said anyway, but I wanted to offer up my agreement and note that your line of reasoning is probably the clearest framework for this issue I've seen on this thread.

[Matariki]

137. Thank you very much.

i appreciate that a lot ;-)

[Matariki]

37. I agree wtih you as far as photography of illegal activity goes

you are way up the wrong tree if you are referring to writing or drawings.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. Should photos of illegal activity be censored?

Or modified to remove any illegal activity?

[Matariki]

63. That's a good question.

Let's look at an obvious example - child pornography. If you have photographs of actual children engaged in sex, then a crime has been committed to produce those photographs. That most certainly should be illegal. Even if the person possessing the photos had nothing to do with the actual crime - it still creates a market for that crime, right?

On the other hand, if a person is of age but looks younger and poses in 'faked child pornography' should that be illegal? Many people would argue yes, that it creates a desire or market for a criminal activity. Same goes with a novel or graphics (like a japanese manga). I disagree, I think outlawing stuff at this level is stepping into the territory of 'thought crime'.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

75. Ah, but that's an exception.

Yes, a crime was committed when child pornography was produced, but that's not why it's a crime. It's a crime because it's continuing to exploit those children.

Now, one could argue that people selling pictures of cock fights is exploiting the chickens. But I don't think anybody's masturbating to pictures of cock fights, and I don't think there's people having cock fights because of the lucrative cock fight picture industry, and I don't think it hurts chickens any more than a picture of a bucket of KFC chicken.

"On the other hand, if a person is of age but looks younger and poses in 'faked child pornography' should that be illegal?"

No. Not only no, but hell no. Romeo and Juliet, you'll remember, has a twelve year old and a fourteen year old fucking, which some could argue is two people of age faking child pornography, but that would be stupid. I can understand why people would get emotional and say "yes," but they'd still be wrong. Legally and morally, IMO.

[peacebaby3]

81. Check out the US Animal Welfare Act. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

82. Why don't you just cite the specific line you want me to look at?

[peacebaby3]

97. I think it would be good for you to read the entire thing, but to be specific

regarding these mail order subscription magazines, only sold through Amazon..check out post #54.

They are illegal (including the photos when used for promotion).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

117. Ah, but for better or worse there's a higher law.

Specifically, the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

[peacebaby3]

123. Yea, we'll see. n/t

[peacebaby3]

64. I'm happy to be up the wrong tree (in your opinion) if I don't think that

publishing a magazine with a "how-to" raise and train animals, hold events for dog fighting or cock fighting and also market the products in order for a person to do so is legal, let alone moral.

Lucky for me, the US government is on my side for this one with the Animal Welfare Act.

I don't want to be arguing the same points over and over again with you. It's very obvious we have a strong difference of opinion on the issue.

Peace.

[Matariki]

66. Well cool for you for advocating censorship, as long as it's something you don't like

nice progressive stance.

[peacebaby3]

76. Hey, well thanks for promoting torture and cruelty of animals. Very progressive of you also! n/t

[Matariki]

124. Do you understand WHY the ACLU protects the KKK's right to free speech

as equally as it protects progressive groups? Do you understand that advocating free speech is NOT THE SAME as advocating what is being said?

If you can't understand this, you really need to do some deeper thinking. It is the bedrock of a free society. We CAN'T pick and choose what we will allow as free speech. It doesn't work that way.

That you accuse me of 'promoting torture and cruelty of animals' because I am against censorship demonstrates to me that you don't get it.

[peacebaby3]

136. Actually, you don't get it. There are limits to free speech, by law.

The SPLC has won quite a few legal battles against the KKK and other groups when their literature or actions have crossed the line.

I accused you because in the post right above it...you accused me of censorship because I don't agree with you that there are no limits to free speech and I think that promotion of animal torture and cruelty should not be protected among other things such as promotion of child pornography, or a web site that posts the names and addresses of doctors who perform abortions along with their picture on a wanted poster. Did you support that groups right to free speech also? They didn't explicitly tell their followers to go and kill these doctors, but several of them were killed and the killers had gotten their info from that site.

If you read my reply directly above that, I had said to you and I quote:

"I don't want to be arguing the same points over and over again with you. It's very obvious we have a strong difference of opinion on the issue. Peace."

So you made the first accusation! I attempted to end it in a somewhat peaceful manner, but that just wasn't good enough for you.

[Matariki]

139. If the magazine is 'illegal' then how is it that Amazon is selling it?

You are making some correct points. Amazon can't sell child pornography, but they CAN sell Lolita. Get it?

When I tried to differentiate between a magazine selling photos of an illegal activity versus writing about it, or drawing pictures of it, you seem to be arguing that both are wrong.

Are we arguing the same point over and over and is this 'un-peaceful'? I'm just trying to figure out if we are even misunderstanding each other or not.

[AZBlue]

144. Oh, stop with this ridiculousness - this is a lame attempt to hijack this thread.

[Matariki]

148. You are calling on people to boycott a bookstore for selling books!

what do you expect?

[AZBlue]

149. This has nothing to do with selling books. Maybe you should pay more attention to the topic.

[Matariki]

157. So your not advocating not shopping at Amazon then?

Just not buying the cockfighting magazines?

Well, no problem then, I think cockfighting is disgusting.

[AZBlue]

158. You should pay more attention to what you write.

" to boycott a bookstore for selling books!"

I'm not asking anyone to boycott them "for selling books."

Hopefully this is clear to you now because this is the last time I'll clarify it for you.

[Matariki]

162. You are calling for a boycott of Amazon for selling written material, no?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Whether this material is legal or not is being challenged by the Humane Society, correct? I would infer from the fact that they have to go to court over whether it is legal or not is in question (selling the magazine, not cockfighting), correct? I'll hold my judgment of Amazon's business practices until that's decided in court.

To me your post looks like an advocation to boycott a bookseller who is selling something you don't personally approve of. I'd call that a censorship issue. I don't think I misread your OP.

[HardRocker05]

you are calling for amazon.com to sell kiddy porn and snuff videos, no? nt

[Matariki]

192. delete - dupe.

[Matariki]

193. That is idiotic. Arguing for the 1st amendment is the equivalent to selling snuff films?

Are you able to differentiate between 'kiddie porn' and a novel such as Lolita? A snuff film and a novel such as American Psycho? Do you know the difference between reality and fiction?

The cockfighting magazines that Amazon is selling, are they banned, are they legal? Do you know?

[AZBlue]

205. You didn't say "written materials"

You said "books"

Not only is that something different literally, it also implies something else entirely.

[Judi Lynn]

24. Thank you for the information. I won't be using their service again.

As I said in my message to them, after they've stooped this low, there's very little lower left.

I can't imagine how very sick people would have to be to take pleasure from the suffering of any living thing.

Does anyone know a company he/she would recommend for books, DVD's, electronics, etc.,?
Would very much appreciate getting a fix on a new, and a DECENT website to use from now on.

Thank you.

[and-justice-for-all]

30. Free Speech??

Whom, lets see. So, if they are going to promote Animal Fighting, you think they will be selling NAMBLA reading materials too? Both are inppropriate and promote things that are immoral, they do not fit well into a sound business structure.

If Amazon if going to sell one set of controversial materials, that are seen by many as inappropriate, then they have to sell them all.

[AZBlue]

146. So you support selling child pronography? Isn't that free speech??

Duh.

[Name removed]

183. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZBlue]

206. I won't lower myself to your name-calling level, so I won't point out the obvious to you now.

I come to DU for intelligent discussion, not childish playground behavior.

[fujiyama]

173. A few years ago they were

selling exactly that (NAMBLA material). Not sure what happened, but here's a link to a story about it.

(Sorry it's from WND - an insane RW source):

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29129

[and-justice-for-all]

184. They will do anything for a buck. nt

[SOS]

209. That's what it's all about

Amazon is nothing more than another Wal-Mart.
They treat their employees and suppliers like dirt.

Cockfighting? If it raises their stock price by a penny, it'll be on the homepage.

[gravity]

35. It's selling books, not supporting animal fighting

It's freedom of speech and we don't burn books in this country.

Information isn't a crime.

[idgiehkt]

43. when the mail gets involved it's different, apparently

the article linked explains in further detail:

"The Animal Welfare Act expressly and specifically prohibits use of the U.S. mail service for "promoting" or "in any other manner furthering" animal fighting."

"First Amendment protections do not protect criminal solicitations for the illegal purchase and sale of fighting animals and weapons, which is the driving purpose of these animal fighting materials."

"Every time Amazon.com—which is apparently the only online venue for these magazines—sells a subscription to The Feathered Warrior or The Gamecock, it blatantly violates federal law."

[Colobo]

36. I'm a proud supporter of cock fighting.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. I thought you were talking about that picture.

:rofl:

But no, seriously, do you support cock fighting?

[Colobo]

48. It is a very strong part of Latin America's Hispanic heritage

It is a symbol of a component of our ancestry, of pride and even of honor. The world of cock fighting is very misunderstood over here. It's like bull fighting in Spain: I personally don't go to either, but I understand the importance this has for them and us. It's more sensitive and way more complicated than "animal cruelty".

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. That's interesting.

I didn't know that.

[Bluebear]

51. There's lots of "heritage traditions" that are barbaric

You are proud just because your ancestors found this amusing?

[Colobo]

55. Ancestors? It'a a living tradition that has more than 300 years in our continent

and have even defined the concept of nationality of many places (Puerto Rico included). Fighting cocks are cultural symbols. I know that some of you can't understand how this is possible, but it is.

I guess I'll have to open a thread in defense of "The Gentlemen's Sport", at it is known throughout Latin America.

[flvegan]

72. You do that, neighbor.

See how it goes. "Gentlemen's Sport" nothing like forcing two animals to fight because it's "fun" or "profitable".

[cui bono]

166. A lot of cultures evolve you know. nt

[Judi Lynn]

179. Some people's ancestors no doubt adored butt kicking contests, but most cultures evolve.

It's called progress, right?

At some point, they ALL gotta grow up, move on, learn to think for one's self, develope principles. That doesn't happen when they cling to primitive, completely unwholesome sadism.

[Matariki]

52. Agreed. That's interesting.

I'd love to hear more.

[bicentennial_baby]

61. Awww, it's sensitive...

What utter f'n bullshit. No, it's animal abuse, pure and simple. Honor and pride, my ass. Sickening to see this on DU. :puke:

[Colobo]

65. So for you Latin American culture is bullshit?

[bicentennial_baby]

68. Nope, using 'culture' as an excuse

for animal abuse in the 21st century is bullshit, sorry. I don't believe in cultural relativism, at all, these days.

[Colobo]

69. It's not an excuse, it's tradition and CULTURE regardless if

Americans, the kings of moral relativism, like it or not.

[bicentennial_baby]

77. This has nothing to do with being American

Tradition? Hmmm, slavery was a tradition here once, but we stopped.

Only allowing men to vote? Yep, a former American tradition.

Animal cruelty laws? Nope, didn't exist here until recently, b/c it was 'tradition' to treat animals like trash. Still not great, but I will say at least my 'culture' doesn't publicly promote making animals fight each other for human entertainment, thank you very much, and spare me your sanctimony.

[Matariki]

73. Try, for one minute to see past your own prejudices, huh?

What you think is right, must be an absolute? Like I asked someone else on this thread, how is your moral indignation any different than people who want to outlaw abortion? I'm sure to them murdering 'a baby' is far more serious than chickens fighting. How are you different?

[flvegan]

84. It's not a prejudice.

It's about people competing via animals that are forced to do so because people want them to. If these pussies want honor, tell THEM to get in the ring.

Yeah, won't happen.

It's not about moral indignation in relation to abortion. It's about people exploiting animals. Nothing more, nothing less. Dragging the "murder of a baby" into the argument is like taking a scarecrow to a dance. You're still doing the hustle with a strawman.

[bicentennial_baby]

85. ....

:applause:

[Matariki]

87. And you're still misusing the word 'strawman'

You can't answer the question - how is your vegan zealotry any different than the anti-abortionists.

Can't answer, call it a strawman.

Anything short of an explanation of why you think you're different than them, why your opinion is more valid and therefore your choice of censorship is justified is getting ignored.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftyMom]

86. Because there's no question that a rooster is a living, feeling being,

nor does permitting one to live unmolested deprive any human being of bodily integrity.

Which is probably why it's fucking illegal. Duh.

[Matariki]

91. To the anti-choice people there's a serious question of that very thing.

Do you think they are any less certain of their righteousness than you are of yours?

[LeftyMom]

94. I have evidence. I can show you a chicken and have you interact with it.

I can point you to experts on chicken behavior. What have they got? Doctored photos and faked ultrasounds?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

96. So you're saying we shouldn't eat poultry?

Because they're living, feeling beings?

Or simply that we shouldn't fight them?

[LeftyMom]

103. Yes, absolutely.

The law isn't there yet though. It is very clear on cockfighting.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

105. So you're saying eating chicken should be outlawed?

My goodness. How about fish?

[LeftyMom]

106. I'm saying it shouldn't have to be.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

112. Well then that's fine.

If you don't want to eat chicken, that's fine with me. Just don't tell other people they can't.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

120. Ah.

"Can't? We have a hell of a long way to go as a society before that's a reasonable proposition."

But that's what we are saying about cock fighting.

[LeftyMom]

126. But that's not the case.

In the US hardly anybody is in favor of it. It's illegal in 48 states, and interstate transfer of cockfighting material is illegal.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

127. Exactly.

However, apparently, in some places hardly anybody is against it, and is legal.

[LeftyMom]

128. This thread is about Amazon. Based in the US, violating US law.

What's acceptable or legal elsewhere is not a factor.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

129. Ah, but selling books about cock fighting is different than cock fighting.

And I'm willing to wager far fewer Americans have a problem with that.

Should amazon be allowed to sell books about legal cockfighting in other countries?

[LeftyMom]

130. The problem is magazines with ads for illegal mail-order shipment of cockfighting materials.

[cui bono]

170. I think you're missing the key point...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1070270&mesg_id=1076672

[cui bono]

169. I feel that if you're going to eat meat you should buy organic/free range animals

rather than those that live tortured lives that drive them insane and then die an ugly and painful death due to the means used to kill them. And if they're killed immediately they're lucky. A lot of them aren't and suffer needlessly while they die a slow and painful death.

It's also a lot healthier. Even more healthy to not eat it at all.

[cui bono]

168. I think you're missing the key point.

For me the key point here is that Amazon is actively trying to have the law changed so they can sell this stuff. What does that tell you about the legality of what they're doing or want to do?

[Matariki]

191. Which law is Amazon trying to change?

I thought the Humane Society was taking them to court because the law is unclear or nonexistent?

[cui bono]

212. It's fully explained on the link in the OP...

I'm surprised you missed it.


Amazon.com seems so determined to profit from illegal animal fighting that, rather than simply drop its sales of animal fighting materials, it has filed a motion against The HSUS in federal court, essentially asking that federal and state laws to protect animals be gutted to accommodate Amazon.com's sales of animal fighting paraphernalia.

Amazon.com's persistence is all the more disturbing because it comes just weeks after Congress passed legislation making it a felony offense to ship publications containing "commercial speech" for the purpose of promoting or "in any other manner furthering" animal fighting, in addition to the mailing of all other materials that promote animal fighting.

[Matariki]

213. Ah, but you see the OP is misleading.

The Humane Society CLAIMS that Amazon has broken a law and are suing them in court to try and prove/uphold it. Whether they have ACTUALLY broken a law will be determined in the court case presumably. I doubt that the Humane Society will win this. As many people have pointed out, the law they are trying to cite is vaguely worded and will probably not trump first amendment or state's rights issues. I await your snarky reply ;-)

[cui bono]

220. Nah.... all you want to do is argue and be right.

So fine. No one is ordering you to boycott Amazon. Do what you want. I know what I will do.

[cui bono]

167. Yes but see how you had to put "baby" in quotes?

That's because you know their argument doesn't hold water. It's not murder. Legal abortions involve a fetus that isn't a viable life. The animals involved in the cruel abuse that is being sold are living beings. That's how it's different.

[Matariki]

196. It doesn't' hold water to me, no. But to them it does.

They really believe that it's murder and I can at least see past myself enough to understand that other people see the world differently than me and they are no less passionate in their beliefs than I am in mine. To argue that an animal is more important than a human life would be abhorrent to them, and they believe that no less than you believe that a living animal is more important than an unwanted human fetus. Anything that you can say to prove why your belief is more 'true' than theirs is really only subjective. But just like them, you will argue that your view is objective reality. I'm frankly baffled why this isn't obvious.

To me, 'militant vegetarians' are idiots too, but they believe what they believe with the same passion that the anti-abortionists believe that abortion is murder.

But anyway, we are NOT talking about actual cockfights - Amazon isn't selling fighting roosters or holding cockfights. They are selling magazines talking about cockfights. There IS a difference.

[HardRocker05]

185. HEAR, HEAR! if s/he had a case, s/he would make it; since s/he doesn't, s/he resorts to 'but, but,

but it's tradition... it's part of our culture.' uh, lots of things are part of lots of people's cultures; doesn't make them right.

[flvegan]

62. Cruelty shrouded in "tradition" and "heritage" is still that

Regardless of belief, it's still cruel to those involved. Pride...honor...ego.

So there you go.

[bicentennial_baby]

67. Word.

:applause:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

79. So what about this?

There's no shortage of people who say it's cruel and barbaric, but if somebody told me I couldn't do it, I'd tell them to fuck off.

[flvegan]

88. A bucket of chicken

is only cruel and barbaric to the person eating it. The cruelty is long before the bucket.

I see your point, though. And I'll say that if you want to back up cockfighting as a source of enjoyment, much like a bucket of KFC, then go ahead. That's all either is. Fortunately, most folks see cockfighting as the simple destruction and harm to animals with no positive end result, whereas with those that would eat a tub of extra crispy might at least see it as sustenance.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

92. Ah, but I don't see cockfighting as a source of enjoyment.

However, some people do.

"most folks see cockfighting as the simple destruction and harm to animals with no positive end result"

Most folks here in our culture, sure.

[flvegan]

95. Because you don't see it

don't make it so.

Sorry to be the one to break it to you.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

99. I'm not following you.

Explain.

[flvegan]

107. I think you do.

You simply like to argue...a lot.

Just like asking upthread if someone thinks one "shouldn't" eat poultry. Dude, it's not about you. For once, think about something else. Just because YOU aren't entertained, doesn't mean others are also not entertained, and something just go by the wayside. Check your ego at the door. Think about something other than "how Bornaginhooligan feels". Dog fighting has a long tradition...whaling to extinction is a fine tradition.

As for shouldn't eat poultry? No, I don't think people shouldn't eat poultry simply because they are told not to. I think that at some point, they'd choose not to for more reasons than I'll bore you to list.

But hey...it tastes good, so fuck everything else.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

111. Flvegan, I'm talking about other people.

I'm using myself as an analogy, but I'm talking about other people.

"No, I don't think people shouldn't eat poultry simply because they are told not to."

But you think people shouldn't eat whale because they are told not to?

[flvegan]

121. Check the post you respond to

I think your answer is there. I'm not looking to dance in circles with you tonight.

I'm done with you for the evening. Have a great Friday.

[Colobo]

113. Roosters that die in combat are usually eaten.

[LeftyMom]

83. You don't get to abuse an animal. Cultures change. Deal.

[Bluebear]

178. Word. nt

[Iris]

98. dupe

http://www.wspa-usa.org/pages/481_anti_bullfighting_bill_introduced.cfm


http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/features/bull4.html

http://gospain.about.com/od/spanishlife/i/Bullfightissue.htm

[Iris]

100. Well, even in Spain, some people think bullfighting is a tradition that should be stopped.

http://www.wspa-usa.org/pages/481_anti_bullfighting_bill_introduced.cfm


http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/features/bull4.html

http://gospain.about.com/od/spanishlife/i/Bullfightissue.htm

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

102. Yes, and some people think it's a great sport.

And should be continued.

[Iris]

104. Ever read "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson?

Some traditions are meant to be broken.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

109. Yes, I agree.

Population control via randomly selected stonings is an out-dated cultural practice which has no place in modern society.

[Iris]

115. The story was not about population control. The theme of the story was that

we do things because of tradition that are not always logical or right. And if no one questions this, nothing ever changes.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

119. The story isn't about cock fighting either.

:shrug:

Unless I completely misread that one.

[Iris]

122. Right, it's not, but a theme can be related to all sorts of situations in real life. n/t

[Matariki]

131. You know, I know Santerios who sacrifice chickens as part of their religion.

And it's a very beautiful religion although there are people here who will never see past themselves to understand it.

I am going to Haiti this summer to become initiated into Vodou, another religion that does animal sacrifice on occasion.

Thankfully laws have been passed that protects this aspect of religious freedom.

[AZBlue]

147. Just by claiming it's a "historical, cultural" thing, doesn't make it right.

Almost all cultures have a history of invading other countries, killing off their citizens and taking over their land - should we continue that today too? (please, no Iraq comments - stay on topic) Some cultures used to burn "heretics" and "witches" at the stake. Should we continue that today too? Some cultures used to throw virgins in their volcanoes to appease the volcano god(s). Should we continue that today too?

[SOS]

210. There is no such thing as bull fighting.

It's bull killing.

If there were a 50/50 chance of the matador being gored to death it could be called bull fighting.
And it would be far more entertaining!

[Name removed]

80. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jilln]

161. That's not what you said in your other thread on it.

Which one is the lie?

[JVS]

165. Oh, this will be good

:popcorn:

[Jamastiene]

200. You know...Bombing 4 little black girls to bits and pieces, literally,

was a southern heritage thing too, but that still didn't make it right at all. You are one sick cookie to support something as barbaric as that. If that is what it takes to be a man in your "heritage" then maybe men from your background need to reevaluate what you stand for. You are on my ignore list for that little suckass comment.

[NMMNG]

211. How shameful

:puke:

[Bluebear]

218. Shame. nt

[Annces]

53. Done thanks.

[aikoaiko]

59. I'm not boycotting Amazon over this. Hassling book seller is low.

[flvegan]

89. Big shock, considering.

Yeah, I've read your other posts.

[aikoaiko]

132. of course, a liberal would support the bookstore and not protest book inventory based on politics.

Being a liberal is about supporting liberty.

[cui bono]

172. That's a libertarian. Being a liberal is about being responsible and compassionate

and taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves.

[aikoaiko]

194. but not at the expense of civil liberties.

liberal
noun
1 liberal, progressive
a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties



Now you may see boycotting booksellers because of the books/magazines they sell as progress and reform, but I'd rather not interfere with their civil liberties. I'm to going to buy the animal fighting mags either.

[Jamastiene]

202. Well said. Thank you. n/t

[Bluebear]

187. :nodding:

[Colobo]

60. Video of a cock fight in Salinas, PR here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JatcosMiZ4A

For those of you that haven't seen one or have the curiosity. Watch and judge for yourself.

[piesRsquare]

176. Disgusting

Watched and flagged. Flagged a few others, too.

[RB TexLa]

71. If enough pressure is on them can they just do like we did in Louisiana pass a law and then not

enforce it? A friend of mine was on the floor of the La House and said the members were all laughing as the vote and bill were being red, especially at the punishment part. One of those bills you pass to get people to shut up.

[mondo joe]

101. I still want to know: if Amazon is doing something illegal, why is boycott the

proposal? Why not pursue enforcement of the law?

[LeftyMom]

108. HSUS is suing them to stop it.

Court is slower than public pressure and loss of sales though.

[peacebaby3]

110. You are right and the US Humane Society is going after them in federal court.

They did try to ask nicely for over a year and now they have filed.

[mondo joe]

116. Maybe I'm just missing something - but why a lawsuit rather than law enforcement

handling it?

[bicentennial_baby]

125. Probably b/c law enforcement doesn't give a crap?

That would be my guess.

[Matariki]

133. HEY - All you advocates of censorship!

Do any of you understand why the ACLU protects the free speech rights of groups like the KKK as equally as progressives?

Do you understand that advocating free speech is not the same as advocating what's being said?

Do you understand that a free society can't pick and choose what is censored and what isn't. That if we do that, speech is no longer free.

Do you all understand this simple principal of a free and democratic society? Because I can't tell on a thread like this.

As much as I think PETA (for instance) has it's collective head up it's ass, I would FIGHT for their right for free speech as much as I'd fight for my own. I'd really appreciate the reciprocation though.

[peacebaby3]

138. Free Speech comes with responsibility and has limits - by law. You mention the KKK.

They paid out the ass when the SPLC kicked their butts in a court of law several times for what they have said and published.

And next time you are in a crowded movie theater...go ahead and yell fire and let me know how arguing it was free speech does for you.

And just so you know - I've signed a petition to let the KKK have their dumb ass parade and I don't really like or agree with PETA either, but when one of these groups cross the line, I won't support their supposed "free speech" right regarding a particular issue.

[Matariki]

145. I don't disagree with that.

Well, I guess it depends on where you are drawing the line. The line can't be something we just simply don't agree with. It can't be something we simply don't want other people to think. So what's that line? Posting doctor's home addresses with an incitement to kill them. Yeah that's a line. Yelling 'fire' in a theater - classic line. Writing about cockfights? Where does that fall? Telling how to put on a Cockfighting event, where does that fall? Is that like the 'Anarchist's Cookbook', which is legal?

[peacebaby3]

153. You are arguing this is a free speech issue and I'm not. The law is clear with regard to

this particular issue based on the federal Animal Welfare Act.

With regard to free speech issues, there isn't a clear line and that is quite obvious by the many court battles over "free speech." Thirty years ago, it would be a lot harder to argue that "promoting animal torture and killing" isn't free speech, but society and its peoples' standards change over time like they have over many, many issues. That is why you will often see many SCOTUS decisions that make note of that. The 2005 Roper v. Simmons opinion is the perfect example. Are you a "strict constructionist" (as in following the belief of originalism or texualism) or do you believe that the founding fathers purposely (or maybe even accidentally) wrote an "elastic" (as many would say) document? I'm not so sure that they would have the foresight to understand the implications of space travel, the internet, tv, machine guns, travel by air, the millions of people in the world, the vast difference in many, many religions within this country, or even an American society that was so diverse ethnically... etc. etc. I personally am much more of a developmentalist with much admiration for the Warren Court.

[Matariki]

159. True.

And I think that is exactly what will happen with the court case - Amazon will argue it's a first amendment issue and the Humane Society will argue that it's an Animal Welfare Act violation.

It will be an interesting court case.

[NobleCynic]

190. The Animal Welfare Act is poorly designed

It prohibits talking about any cockfighting event over the phone, the telegraph, the radio, or the television in addition to the prohibition regarding the USPS. Even in states where it is legal.

However, due to its age, it omits the internet.

Nonetheless, it is so severe, I highly doubt it would survive a states rights or first amendment challenge. That is probably the core of the defense Amazon will present in the court room. As written, Amazon is most assuredly violating the law. But, they seem to be of the opinion that they will win in court. They're probably right.

[mondo joe]

197. As I understand it, the Animal Welfare Act ban on shipping materials that "promote"

animal fighting has been applied only to people who stage the fights, but never the publisher of a cockfighting magazine or any of its advertisers.

While the Humane Society claims that the Feathered Warrior and Gamecock are "criminal," they have never been declared to be illegal.

[yewberry]

175. Are you asserting that the sale of magazines is protected speech?

That's what's in question here: the sale of materials.

No one taking away the free speech of anyone here, any more than people contacting potential sponsors of a "Dr. Laura" television show were abridging her free speech rights. She's free to say or print whatever she wants, but she isn't guaranteed a television program. The individuals promoting blood sports may also say what they want within the law. However, free speech rights do not guarantee a market or a megaphone. Amazon is not the government, and they are under no obligation to sell material.

I surely do understand the necessity of free speech, and I do advocate the rights of even the most horrifying, despicable groups that arise in our country. However, attempting to drape a nonpolitical issue like blood sport for entertainment under a flag of "free speech" cheapens our already-endangered free speech rights.

[piesRsquare]

177. Very well said n/t

[Matariki]

195. No. I said censorship.

In this case an attempt at censorship via the market. I understand the difference. However for Amazon, when they go to court, it WILL be about first amendment rights.

I find this sort of thing to be little different than christians boycotting stores for selling Harry Potter. I don't think it's a very progressive stance to promote censorship - even when the material is distasteful to one's sensibility or morals. I hope it's clear that I'm differentiating between talking about something and the thing itself.

[yewberry]

199. Actually, you said free speech four times.

That's why I responded as I did.

But if Amazon goes to court, you're right, it will be about first amendment rights. They may win--who knows? It is worth mentioning that where Amazon is located, cockfighting (or promoting it) is a felony.

You may see this as similar to Christians boycotting bookstores for carrying fiction they don't approve of. However, the forces behind the two situations are different. Fundamentalists may boycott over fiction, and the heart of their complaint is that witchcraft is harmful to people's souls, a belief which, while it may be sincere, cannot be demonstrated. In this case, the "distasteful material" actively promotes felonious (where Amazon and I are located) activity which demonstrably harms animals.

And you've made it clear that you're differentiating between the act of cockfighting and the promotion, marketing and depiction of cockfighting.

[Matariki]

198. Do you understand the difference between the sport itself and talking about the sport?

I hope so.

[Colobo]

135. I have opened another thread, hoping that we can have a meaningful conversation

I sound like Hillary now. :)

[RetroLounge]

208. a meaningful conversation

is that a tradition also?

:shrug:

RL

[Booster]

151. Done. I always thought Amazon's Bezell (sp?) was a pretty

compasionate guy, but this going too far just to make a buck.

[piesRsquare]

171. Thank you so much for posting this!

I'm on the HSUS mailing list...don't know why I didn't receive anything about this.

I took action, and sent the message to a bunch of other people.

[fujiyama]

174. This is interesting

and not particularly new for Amazon (selling incredibly controversial material bordering on possibly encouraging illegal behavior).

Several years ago Amazon was selling a NAMBLA book. I remember hearing about it back in the day and googled it just now. Sure enough I got a hit linking to the following article:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29129

Sorry about the source. It's very RW.

But the point is the same. Amazon is walking a fine line once again. I have no idea what ended up happing with regards to Amazon selling NAMBLA stuff.

While I believe, like any sane person that NAMBLA is SERIOUSLY sick, twisted, and fucked up and that cockfighting is bizarre and barbaric, it's hard to say what the legal precedent here is. This will possibly make it to the USSC at some point (regarding violating mail laws by selling material possibly encouraging such behavior).

Personally, I think we should be careful of any path that leads to censorship - even of books that describe very disgusting acts and behavior.

[entanglement]

201. Cockfighting, cultural relativism, PETA, hate speech, KKK, slavery, FGM, fetuses and christians!

Guys, you forgot breastfeeding and screaming babies

:hide:

[Jamastiene]

203. Oh, you're just asking for it.

:spank:

Probably circumcision hasn't been mentioned yet either. It's barbaric too. Wanna start a subthread? :evilgrin:

[Matariki]

204. Can we get the topic of Hillary into the mix?

Please?

[Matariki]

214. Amazon.com won't shy away from fight with Humane Society

http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-6158256-7.html

Because the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment provides a general guarantee of freedom of speech except in very narrow circumstances, the Humane Society is facing an uphill battle. No U.S. court (that we know of) has ever held that it's illegal to sell or publish a cockfighting magazine.

"We see this as a freedom of speech issue," said Amazon's Patty Smith. "In our mind, freedom of speech is designed to protect unpopular or ugly speech, and we don't think customers want us picking what we think is appropriate for them to read. Our stated goal is always to provide customers with the broadest selections possible."

The American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression quickly came to Amazon's defense.

"Speech that advocates hateful ideas is entitled to the same degree of First Amendment protection as speech advocating popular views," said ABFFE President Chris Finan. "If the courts accepted the Humane Society's argument, we can only wonder what other kinds of controversial ideas in books and magazines would come under attack next. This is why the Supreme Court has declared that even the advocacy of illegal conduct is protected by the First Amendment."

[Matariki]

215. This is the most recent information about the lawsuit:

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070608/a_cockfighting08.art.htm

The Humane Society amended its lawsuit this week on the heels of a law signed by President Bush in May that makes it a felony to sponsor or exhibit an animal fight or buy, sell, transport or deliver weapons such as blades, knives or spurs designed for cockfighting.

Amazon.com argues that the company has a constitutional right to sell the magazines.

"Amazon.com believes it is censorship not to sell certain titles because we believe their message is objectionable," spokesman Drew Herdner said in an e-mailed statement. "We also allow readers, authors and publishers to express their views freely about these titles and other products we offer on our website, so that customers can determine for themselves whether or not a certain magazine is right for them."

The company says it will continue to sell the publications. Earlier this year, it stopped selling DVDs of dogfights because, unlike the magazines, they depicted actual incidents of violence.

[MonkeyFunk]

216. They sell "Mein Kampf", too

but it doesn't mean they support Nazism.

Selling written materials doesn't mean one endorses what's contained in them.

[bliss_eternal]

217. But they are gaining revenue from the sale of it.

:(

[MonkeyFunk]

219. Yes

that's what booksellers do. They make money by selling books.

The notion that they should only sell "the right books" is frightening.

[bliss_eternal]

221. I understand your point..

It's a valid concern, in my opinion. But I can also understand those that may no longer want to give their business to them, because of this. It's their choice--frightening or not. :shrug: