Arguing Over The Constitutionality Of Online Cockfighting Videos
from the chicken-on-chicken dept
Over the last year or so, the Humane Society's been threatening Amazon.com because a third-party merchant that used its e-commerce platform was selling magazines about cockfighting. The Humane Society contended that the magazines were illegal under the Animal Welfare Act, though Amazon disagreed -- but in any case, since Amazon wasn't the publisher, they didn't seem like the right people to sue. Cockfighting and free speech has come up again now, as a company that sells online cockfighting videos is challenging a federal law that makes it illegal to sell depictions of animal cruelty. The law was enacted in 1999 to combat the sales of "crush videos", which apparently depict women crushing animals to death in order to deliver some sort of sexual stimulation to the viewer. Then-President Clinton instructed the DOJ to enforce the law narrowly, to target such material, even though the law is worded much more broadly. The company says it operates from Puerto Rico, where cockfighting remains legal. It contends that the fights are an accepted part of the culture there, and appears to be claiming that because the fights themselves are legal in Puerto Rico, it should be able to sell videos of them over the internet to users in the rest of the country.It's a complicated case, since generally, depictions of illegal activity aren't themselves illegal, and don't fall under the exceptions to free speech in the First Amendment. Should the law be upheld, it could establish an interesting precedent for the government being able to limit speech that depicts illegal activities and give the government a useful censorship tool. While it's unlikely it would seek to criminalize the broadcast of surveillance footage of bank robberies, gambling-related content would be a possible target, given the fervor with which online gambling has been attacked. Already, at least one state has tried to crack down on online gambling sites that don't offer gaming, just discussion and links. If this law is upheld, such efforts could receive a boost.
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
Filed Under: cockfighting
Companies: amazon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not that tricky
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not that tricky
Murder is illegal. But so are snuff films. Oh wait, what are those? Oh, videos of murder. Ok, well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not that tricky
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cock fights
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not that tricky
> films. Oh wait, what are those?
> Oh, videos of murder. Ok, well...
Actually, snuff films aren't illegal. Only the murder that is required to make them is illegal.
If you think they are illegal, feel free to cite me the law that says so.
Note that many so-called "snuff" films are sold openly and legally in the USA. I remember watching "Faces of Death" when I was in college, and that's nothing but a collection of clips of people being killed in accidents, committing suicide, or being executed in foreign countries. I found the video to be in extremely poor taste and would never watch another one but it's certainly not illegal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There's really no gray area here - you start banning a type of books because Group A doesn't like them - then you have to start banning books other groups disagree with.
Why don't we just burn any books in the streets that the government deems 'unacceptable'? That's where it will get to - once again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
As for the videos, I read that law yesterday and it protects any footage that has journalistic, political, artistic, etc. video. It was passed because of pornos where women in high heels were crushing small animals to death. That was someones idea of a fetish.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Because then we would all be left with the bible. And I'd rather watch a cock fight than read the bible any day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Freakin' hippies.
No, a third party is using amazon as a storefront to sell magazines *about* cockfighting. This is another problem with local laws and a global marketplace. Cockfighting (it seems) is still legal in Louisiana (until next year) and in other parts of the world (like Mexico and Puerto Rico)-- so our laws don't apply to people in Mexico (or, hell, Louisiana) buying magazines about cockfighting.
As for videos, the law clearly needs to be thrown out. Upon signing, President Clinton said something like 'Make sure you fellas only use this against sick animal killing porn.' and since then, it's been used against all forms of animal cruelty. So, if the law was only supposed to be against porn (protect the children and furry beasts!) but was worded against everything, then it needs to be rewritten, or revoted on as it is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not that tricky
Distastful, disgusting and dispicable are NOT Illegal.
Sue Amazon, that is so transparent.
While you are at it,
sue the magazine paper mill, provide paper!
sue the internet provider, provides Amazon connection!
sue Google for allowing searchs to Amazon site!
sue Microsoft for providing software to search Google to find Amazon who sells a magazine that you don't like!
You cannot legislate good sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You guys never friggin' cease to amaze me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
You are a very sick and twisted person...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
do you know how much violence in in the bible? it would be one of the first works banned.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Burning Books
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
And no, you're not winning any points with me by dragging knee-jerk emotional issues (the safety of innocent children) into an argument about cruelty to poultry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
And in fact, you can actually see this principle at work pretty much any time you watch a non G-rated (and even then) movie or TV-show...
now, for your knee-jerk emotional bullshit example: it would still be illegal for your film to be peddled and purchased in the USA, because not only the act itself, but also the possession and sale of child porn is forbidden in the USA...in fact, they had to make a special law for that, because guess what, the general principle is: depiction (fictional or non-fictional) of an illegal act is not illegal.
You should try a lot harder to master logic, or just stop trying altogether...
As for the topic: personally, I don't think videos/magazines/... should not be censored/forbidden (and although just the thought of child pornography/abuse makes me want to throw up, I do think it should include child porn, because, as so often argued in other circumstances, when you make one exception, however altruistic and pure, you have to allow a million others).
What should be done, is for example convince Puerto Rico to ban cock fights and prosecute any infraction, the same with said country where the age of consent precedes pubic hair.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This ain't no chicken shit...
If cock fighting videos are illegal in the U.S., then it's the American citizens problem and it should not be the problem of a cock-fight-operator in any way, shape or form.
Also, there is level of hypocrisy and downright ignorance involved here. There are cultural differences that American legislators simply refuse to accept, they want to impose their belief system on the entire world, which is why so many people hate these RIDICULOUS American policies that only serve to waste tax payer dollars.
Personally, I don't watch cock fighting but I can appreciate the fact that it is viewed by and large as a sport throughout Puerto Rico, Spain and other Spanish speaking countries. Bull fighting is also a bloody sport involving animals... I don't see US legislators trying to 'regulate' BULLFIGHTING or intervening in one of Spain's favorite national sport! Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy!
The Humane society is an honorable organization that I have a lot of respect for. They have done so much for animals, fighting animal cruelty and what not. I respect their opinion, however, they should focus their energy on dogs, cats, wales, dolphins, monkey's or animals that are at risk of becoming extinct. Cocks are BIRDS, they have the brain the size of my pinky tip and these birds are raised to be cold blooded killers.
By the way, these cocks are usually treated like royalty... not all of them, but you should see how owners pamper these creatures. I've witnessed grown men cry upon the unfortunate death of his beloved COCK and let me tell you, it was a sad picture. Although, I am not sure if it was because of the cock or the $250,000 bet he lost. Regardless, the loss of a champion cock can send any man into a deep depression. How's that for love?
FytFan
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Cock fights
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Watch Online Hollywood Movies
[ link to this | view in thread ]