[Michael]

Quote:

Today, The Humane Society of the United States announced that it will sue online retailer Amazon.com Inc. in the District of Columbia based on Amazon's sale of two magazines -- The Gamecock and The Feathered Warrior -- that promote illegal cockfighting activities in violation of federal law.

In a notice posted today, The HSUS notified Amazon of the suit, which is based on legal violations the animal protection organization first brought to Amazon's attention almost a year ago, including repeated violations of the criminal provisions of Title 7, section 2156, also known as the Animal Welfare Act.

In July 2005, HSUS President and CEO Wayne Pacelle wrote to Amazon asking that these cockfighting magazines be removed from Amazon's website because the materials and advertisements in the magazines clearly violate the Animal Welfare Act, which provides that "t shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly use the mail service of the U.S. 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." 7 U.S.C. § 2156(c).

To date, no response has been received, and cockfighting magazines continue to be one of the top sellers on the Amazon.com website, with The Gamecock ranking at number 501 on Amazon's list of 17,142 magazines for subscription sales. The Feathered Warrior ranks at 2,076.

Full story...

http://www.hsus.org/press_and_public...kfighting.html

The press release is dated July 18th but I just checked and both magazines are still available on the Amazon website.

I will be removing our link to the Amazon store and e-mailing Amazon to let them know why.

 

[Sevenseas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael

I will be removing our link to the Amazon store and e-mailing Amazon to let them know why.

 

[peace]

I'm worried the deck is stacked against the HSUS on this one.

If one had the time I'm sure you could find plenty of materials which discuss or advocate illegal things for sale on Amazon. For example, I just checked Amazon and see they sell High Times, which is a magazine about pot smoking. Amazon probably fears that if they get rid of the cockfighting magazine, they will be compelled to purge other materials to avoid lawsuits from other interest groups.

I'm guessing that like most criminals, cockfighters probably spend much of their time trading tips over the internet.

 

[Katt Fink]

Damn... I just placed an order with Amazon... guess that will be my last for a while. That really sucks because half the time, you can find stuff even cheaper there than on eBay...

 

[GhostUser]

This ends my shopping at amazon for a while

 

[kpickell]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael

I will be removing our link to the Amazon store and e-mailing Amazon to let them know why.

Good for you! What response did they give you?

 

[IamJen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by peace

I'm worried the deck is stacked against the HSUS on this one.

If one had the time I'm sure you could find plenty of materials which discuss or advocate illegal things for sale on Amazon. For example, I just checked Amazon and see they sell High Times, which is a magazine about pot smoking. Amazon probably fears that if they get rid of the cockfighting magazine, they will be compelled to purge other materials to avoid lawsuits from other interest groups.

I'm guessing that like most criminals, cockfighters probably spend much of their time trading tips over the internet.

Agreed. They'd have to go after the magazines that talk about how to circumvent copyright laws, advocate drug use, or posession of illegal weapons, just for starters.

I do think it's cool that they're making the effort at least. A search on the net revealed that they earlier tried to convince the USPS to stop distributing it.

Be sure and let us know what kind of response you get Michael.

 

[jeezycreezy]

Amazon sell a number of things that I would think would be considered objectionable and/or offensive to a lot of people here. Products with meat in them, for example. Leather jackets. Books on hunting and hunting paraphernalia. Rap CDs. To name a few.

I get that Amazon are selling something that promotes illegal activities, and that meat, leather and hunting are all perfectly legal.

It just seems kind of incongruous to make a big deal out of one thing and sort of turn a blind eye to any of the other things Amazon do that also promote being sucky towards animals.

PS. I applaud the removal of the link in this face of this and I don't mean to belittle the stalwart efforts of the HS of the US.

 

[Sevenseas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeezycreezy

Amazon sell a number of things that I would think would be considered objectionable and/or offensive to a lot of people here. Products with meat in them, for example. Leather jackets. Books on hunting and hunting paraphernalia. Rap CDs. To name a few.

I get that Amazon are selling something that promotes illegal activities, and that meat, leather and hunting are all perfectly legal.

It just seems kind of incongruous to make a big deal out of one thing and sort of turn a blind eye to any of the other things Amazon do that also promote being sucky towards animals.

PS. I applaud the removal of the link in this face of this and I don't mean to belittle the stalwart efforts of the HS of the US.

You have to start from something and go on from there. Just like you first focus on fur instead of leather because it's already a controversial "product". And in this case protesting the promotion of something illegal at least has some chance of succeeding, whereas protesting Amazon because they sell leather jackets would be pretty pointless.

(eta: my comment may be poorly expressed, I'm writing this on a rollercoaster ride)

 

[jeezycreezy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sevenseas

You have to start from something and go on from there.

Why not just skip to the end?

Seriously. Check out the postscript in my previous post. I'm not belittling this in the least. I was just pointing out an incongruity in attitudes is all.

I'm surprised it garnered a contrary reply from you.

Quote:

whereas protesting Amazon because they sell leather jackets would be pretty pointless.

Indeed. I hope you don't think that that was what I was implying we should do.

 

[Sevenseas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeezycreezy

I'm not belittling this in the least. I was just pointing out an incongruity in attitudes is all.

Well I'm not sure what that means. Whose attitudes? Precisely because HSUS and others are just having a very commonsensical or strategically viable approach to protesting, I don't think this says anything about their attitudes towards cockfighting as compared to other forms of exploitation.

 

[jeezycreezy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sevenseas

Well I'm not sure what that means. Whose attitudes?

The attitudes of anyone who would protest Amazon over hearing about them selling a magazine that promoted cockfighting (ie. something not so nice for chickens) but who was previously okay shopping there despite the many products they sell that are also not so nice to chickens. That strikes me as an incongruous (inconsistent) attitude towards chickenkind.

Quote:

Precisely because HSUS and others are just having a very commonsensical or strategically viable approach to protesting, I don't think this says anything about their attitudes towards cockfighting as compared to other forms of exploitation.

Agreed. I applaud their efforts.

 

[Sevenseas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeezycreezy

The attitudes of anyone who would protest Amazon over hearing about them selling a magazine that promoted cockfighting (ie. something not so nice for chickens) but who was previously okay shopping there despite the many products they sell that are also not so nice to chickens. That strikes me as an incongruous (inconsistent) attitude towards chickenkind.

Well I think that covers a lot of people, also from this board. I for example would not have stopped shopping at Amazon because they sell meat or leather, but hearing that they sell cockfighting magazines does to me create a very negative "aura" around the company.

I don't see this as any different from boycotting a restaurant because they sell foie gras or veal despite the fact that one goes to restaurants selling chicken, or even boycotting a store because they sell fur despite the fact that one shops at stores selling leather.

Foie gras may not be significantly more cruel to the geese than factory farm conditions are for chickens, and minks or foxes may not live significantly worse lives than cows, but it all comes down to what my earlier post said: starting from the more marginal products and moving on from there. You cannot boycott everything associated with a certain level of suffering caused to non-humans, but you can very well boycott places associated with a marginal phenomenon on the verge of general societal rejection. That's why I don't see it as inconsistent.

 

[jeezycreezy]

^^ I'm glad we agree.

 

[Sevenseas]

You say the attitudes are inconsistent, I'm saying they're not, and so we agree?

I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything because I don't personally care about the HSUS for example, I haven't just been able to keep up with this thread.

 

[jeezycreezy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sevenseas

I'm not trying to be argumentative

Trust me. We agree.

 

[Sevenseas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeezycreezy

You don't trust me

If your point was merely that cockfighting is one abuse of chickens among many from which it cannot be qualitatively distinguished, then I agree.

Agreeing with me is a difficult and demanding job.

 

[jeezycreezy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sevenseas

Agreeing with me is a difficult and demanding job.

Agreed.