Humane Society Again Threatens Amazon Over Somebody Else's Cockfighting Magazines
from the sue-the-right-person dept
Last year, the Humane Society alleged Amazon.com was breaking the law by offering some magazines about cockfighting for sale. The magazines were being sold by a third party, which just used Amazon's e-commerce platform, but the Humane Society said Amazon was liable for selling content which broke the Animal Welfare Act. Amazon hasn't removed the magazines, because it says they're not illegal, and now the Humane Society again says it's going to sue. While the magazines in question don't appear to be much more than objectionable or offensive to the Humane Society, their illegality is far from certain. That's not really the issue, though: just as before, Amazon certainly appears to be the wrong party to sue, since it isn't a publisher or content provider, it just operates a storefront which the publisher uses. If the content is truly illegal, the publisher would seem to be a much more correct target for a lawsuit -- and such a move would help deflect criticism that the Humane Society's merely trying to scare Amazon into refusing to sell such materials and act as a de facto censor to try and block legal material it simply doesn't like.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Good for Amazon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good for Amazon
Terrible comparison.
HS is claiming that the material being sold is illegal. If this is true then they are completely right in going after Amazon (next up... the supplier). A better comparison for this argument would be if Amazon was actually selling marijuana – then it wouldn't even be a debate because it is known to be illegal. If the material in question is indeed illegal than Amazon has a legal responsibility to remove the material and refuse to sell it. That is without a doubt a fact. No retailer should be selling or distributing illegal content and I don't see how that can be debated.
If the material, as Amazon suggests, is not illegal then HS is in the wrong. Either way, they are looking to have the material removed because they don't feel it should be distributed. Going after the supplier isn't going to help as much as going after the distributer so their tactic makes perfect sense when you look at their objective. They don't want it available and going after the distributer is the fastest way to make that happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sue happy giddy mother ______'s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sue happy giddy mother ______'s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even though the magazines in question aren't considered " illegal", there is a major movement to stop cockfighting. The fact that amazon.com would allow a promotion of such animal abuse , shows that money means everything at the expense of life.
Animal abuse in ANY form should not be tolerated.
Kitty Carpenter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While I agree that animal abuse is bad it's not as clear as you would like. and You need to realize that wishing & good intentions are not laws.
If these magazines (regardless of how disgusting they may be) are not actually illegal then you need to refocus your attention. Not on the people selling them but the people CREATING them, if there are indeed pictures of cockfights in them & cockfighting is illegal in the state where the pictures were taken then you have evidence of a crime & can actually DO SOMETHING about the problem.
Also the blanket statement "Animal abuse in ANY form should not be tolerated. " is an open invitation for abuse, there are people & organizations that are convinced that my feline housemates are abused animals simply because I have them as pets.
SO, WHO GETS TO DRAW THE LINE??
There are people in the world that consider cockfighting to be instinctual behavior in those animals and if they were "wild" they would do it anyway without humans help or betting on them.
I don't know the truth of that and I doubt that you do either, I suspect that it's somewhere less than what happens in the fights but the animals ARE the ones fighting so there must be some truth in it.
So again, Who gets to draw the line? You? Me? the crazy cockfighters? the crazy anti-animal anything people? Who?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The magazines are indeed illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why stop there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why stop there?
see the difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why stop there?
If you people would actually read what is posted you'd realize that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amazon are innocent
I am completely against harm to animals, but I still think that Amazon are completely right in what they're doing in keeping this magazine up. More companies should fight these things, especially when their focus is so wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Noones asked the important question!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its obvious...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I personally do not condone cock fighting, but I disagree with current belief that just because one group thinks something is wrong (and is perhaps ignorant to it) that it should be banned or called illegal.
People in the world need to start worrying about themselves and their own families. Feed your kids, stop suing amazon and everyone else that does something you don't "agree with"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've got an idea...
Hey.. that gives me an idea for a magazine...
I've always wanted to start a "toddlerfighting" magazine.. I know there's these secret "toddlerfights" where parents bring their 2-4 year olds and put them in a ring full of squishy balls and watch them beat each other up. Yeah, it can get dangerous and bloody (dangerous that social services is always breathing down their necks), but isn't it worth the pleasure?
I didn't think there would be a forum to sell my magazine, but heck, Amazon... you're my kind of place!
END SARCASM>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>& gt;
What gives a corporation the ability to get away with "hey, we're just providing the place for the market". Can the owners of a flea market turn a blind eye to one of their vendors selling illegal substances? NO~! Can a porno shop sell pornography of illegal acts, justifying it by saying "I'm not the creator of the content, just the distributor"... NO!
Just because an online entity is "virtual", doesn't mean their following the law is "virtual" either!
While I'm for an open and free market, and I enjoy eating creatures (I'm a member of "P.eople E.ating T.asty A.nimals"), Amazon is just wrong in stating they have no legal obligation here....
J
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shrodinger's Cat...
since, the atoms undergoing radio active decay will be in a superimposed state and won't be defined until you open the box, you can rest assured that when the humane society comes and opens the box it will be entirely their fault the animal did or didn't die, thus relieving you of any fault whatsoever and entirely within the rights to sue the humane society for the inhumane act of killing your cat :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shrodinger's Cat...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dorpus strikes again. child porn is definitively illegal. therefore you can't sell it. you're analogy doesn't work.
if the magazines *are* illegal then they shouldn't be sold. its illegal to SELL illegal goods. now, if its just a magazine with content that you believe shouldn't be tolerated, but isn't actually illegal, then you're fighting the wrong fight. you should be fighting to get laws made that *would* make it illegal.
and if they're suing for money, they're idiots. if they're suing to get them to stop selling the magazines, then it has nothing to do with who has the bigger pockets. it may be as simple as the creators of the magazine aren't in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Illegal Sales
> they shouldn't be sold.
The magazines aren't illegal. Even the Human Society isn't claiming that the magazines themselves are illegal. Any such law would be void as an unconsitutional violation of the 1st Amendment anway.
The Humane Society is citing some obscure portion of an Animal Cruelty law that prohibits using the U.S. Mail to promote actions that are cruel to animals. Even this law is on shaky constitutional ground and would probably fail if it were ever challenged but none of that even matters because Amazon gives customers the choice of a variety of shipping methods, only one of which is the U.S. Mail. So as long as the sellers are shipping their cockfighting magazines via UPS or FedEx or DHL, then there is NO VIOLATION OF THE LAW WHATSOEVER.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree that being cruel to your pet is wrong. But i dont call my steak a pet. I can have a pet steer (and if I did eating him would be wrong to me) but that doesnt stop me from enjoying my pan-milk fed veal.
If chickens were smarter (and maybe they are and we are just too dumb to communicate with them) they would probably be the ones in the corner of the boxing ring shouting "go get em ROCK"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then the Humane Society needs to sue you all, every last one of you who's ever purchased a book at Amazon or payed taxes to the government, because by supporting those two entities you've been supporting illegal cockfighting.
Evil you are, every last one of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shrodinger's Cat...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, I do not support abuse of animals in any way. All I'm saying that a lawsuit like this is such extreme nitpicking. You should focus your efforts and resources on something more productive. Amazon.com has not broken any EXISTING laws, and they are certainly not to blame for any content sold by third parties through them. In fact, I think there are existing laws that prevent such lawsuits against companies like that where you cannot sue them because they do not provide the content themselves. If you wanna sue somebody, for cryin' out loud sue whoever makes the magazine in the first place. They're the ones doing the abusing, not Amazon.
Common sense is all but lost of the idiots of today's world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
animals..
Also, I know of a few sports where the object is to hurt your opponent. Bleeding, broken bones/teeth, bruises and even death occour from theese sports. Why then aren't boxing, UFC, martial arts and wrestling banned? Aren't we as humans "animals" too? Why doesn't the HS go after this as well?
Ok, TechIssue part
How far does the illegality of an action carry? If you sold the box to hold the cookware to be used by someone who eats before commiting a crime, are you responsible? I mean you provided the offender with the means to commit the offense, right?
So, is cockfighting illegal? In the US and many other nations I believe it is. Is it illegal to write about said cometition? I believe it isn't. Is it illegal to offer, via 3rd party, said written commentary on said illegal act?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
focus on the actual subject
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You've been flamed. Enjoy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This Site Sucks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: focus on the actual subject
so, if you want to focus on the actual issue... do so. the subject is the HS trying to say its illegal to sell magazines that promote cruelty to animals.
and again... whoever is using the argument that "we fight, so why isn't that illegal"... keep in mind if you force a human to fight, it is illegal. its the choice that makes it legal. therefore, thats where the cruelty comes in.
and to be clear, animals actually do have certain rights. not the same rights as humans, but they do have rights, at least in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: focus on the actual subject
> the actual issue... do so. the
> subject is the HS trying to say
> its illegal to sell magazines that
> promote cruelty to animals.
No, that's not what the Society is claiming. The Society is claiming that it's illegal to use the U.S. Mails to ship material that promotes cruelty to animals. The law they cite has nothing to do with selling the material. Even the Humane Society recognizes that if these people were selling their cockfighting magazines on a street corner to passers-by, there would be no violation of the law whatsoever.
And as I said before, since Amazon allows its customers to choose between a variety of shipping methods, the sellers of these magazines aren't violating anything if they choose FedEx, UPS or any other private delivery service. Just so long as they don't use the U.S. Postal Service to ship them they're fine.**
**And even if they do use the Postal Service, they'd have a pretty good case for challenging the actual statute itself on constitutional grounds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]