Amazon.com will NOT stop selling cockfighting magazines.

[Kajsa]

While the momentum is up on awareness of
animal cruelty and staged animal fights,
here is a little known fact regarding one of
the largest online retailers around.

Amazon.com has and continues to sell
cockfighting magazines.
Never mind that cockfighting is illegal in most
states.


http://tinyurl.com/kq3ko

Cockfighting is illegal in all but two states, and the vast majority of Americans staunchly oppose it. And yet Amazon.com, Inc. refuses to stop selling two publications devoted to the cruel blood "sport": The Gamecock and The Feathered Warrior. After repeatedly warning Amazon that it is violating federal law, The HSUS intends to take the online retail giant to court.

[Taverner]

1. Good for them

Yes, cockfighting is barbaric and animal cruelty - but censorship is worse

[La Lioness Priyanka]

13. ...

:thumbsup:

[idgiehkt]

48. it's not a censorship issue

violations of animal welfare act, which is federal law, because of mail order:

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

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. That's censorship.

And a clear violation of the first amendment.

[idgiehkt]

53. It's federal law

been that way for quite a long time.

The link in the OP old. HSUS apparently plans to file suit, so it will be interesting to see what develops.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. So is the first amendment.

And it overrides other irrelevant censorship laws, like the one you cite.

[idgiehkt]

59. lol

I guess we'll have to wait and see what develops with the suit, as to what overrides what.

The legal notice informed Amazon that "unless these magazine are removed immediately, The HSUS will have no choice but to initiate legal action" under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits corporations from selling goods in the District in any manner that is contrary to a "requirement of federal law."

http://tinyurl.com/kq3ko

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

63. Why wait?

You mean you can't tell it's unconstitutional?

[idgiehkt]

72. Right.

That act governed the animal shelter I worked in years ago. Down to the size of the cages, the temperature in the dog runs, etc, etc, etc. Instead, federal law about this is getting stronger and stronger. Another federal law was passed in May regarding transporting animals across lines for the purpose of fighting them, making penalities stiffer. It's the dawning of a new day. Hopefully Amazon will comply.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

So let me get this straight...

you're advocating censorship?

[idgiehkt]

78. I imagine

you aren't capable of seeing it any other way. The cockfighters thank you.

:patriot:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

80. A simple yes or no, please.

[idgiehkt]

82. rolfmao

weak and disappointing, I expected better.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

88. Do you support this law?

I'm asking, because promoting censorship is a lot more disgusting than supporting cockfighting.

[idgiehkt]

89. Do I support the animal welfare act?

yes, and I'd like it to be made even stronger, to cover animals that are used for food.

[idgiehkt]

90. Then you support censorship.

HA! Beat ya!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

94. Not the clause that's unconstitutional.

You?

[idgiehkt]

100. oh, so now we're onto what parts of it you support

here you go:
http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/awa.htm

edited to add this link:
http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm


pick and choose. I have errands to run. :hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

102. It's not black and white you know.

It's not all or nothing.

It's not like you have to choose between cockfighting and censorship.

[LanternWaste]

125. everyone advocates censorship to one degree or another...

Oh, c'mon.... that's a very disingenuous question. Everyone advocates censorship to one degree or another. I don't think anyone on DU would advocate the free distribution of *any and all* types of printed or digital publications regardless of content.

The *only* difference that exists is one of degrees.

[MNDemNY]

93. Amazon uses UPS so...????

[bicentennial_baby]

96. They also use the USPS

All the time.

[flvegan]

107. Ahem

(3) the term `instrumentality of interstate commerce' means any written, wire, radio, television or other form of communication in, or using a facility of, interstate commerce;'

That's how the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007 reads.

That includes the internet, upon which these orders are placed to amazon.com

I hate repeating myself, but hey.

[Taverner]

101. Law or not, it's fucking censorship

[flvegan]

105. How did I get on the NAMBLA website?

Just kidding.

[Taverner]

111. you mean the North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes?

:)

[flvegan]

112. Classic!

I loved that episode.

[Kajsa]

124. You are sooo bad, Fivegan!

:rofl:

[Kajsa]

122. Thank you, Idgie!

Thanks for clarifying a good point!

it was completely lost in the shuffle!!

You rock. lady!

:pals::yourock:

[TahitiNut]

69. (Nod.)

:thumbsup:

[adigal]

121. I have a small independent bookstore

and I HATE Amazon, because they sell books at a loss, quarter after quarter losing money, just to drive independents out of business. It is always surprising to me that people on a progressive website support companies like Amazon.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Meh. It's legal in some states.

I can't support censorship.

[MNDemNY]

3. Good, That would be censoring words and ideas.

Do we really want to go THAT far??

[butterfly77]

4. Ok, everyone its time now to ...

tell us how dispicable and disgusting these people are,oH I guess it is cool since we eat chicken.

[idgiehkt]

62. well, most people don't eat them alive

roosters fight to the death.

:shrug:

[Beelzebud]

5. We do still have a 1st amendment...

What next? Ban High Times?

[MNDemNY]

6. If you feel strongly about this, then don't buy from Amazon.

If they did censor books, I wouldn't use them.

[Kajsa]

8. I do and I haven't bought one thing

from them since I heard this.

[Madspirit]

67. I DO boycott them...n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

7. you cant conveniently pick and choose first amendment rights

[MNDemNY]

12. Unless, of course, your a Republican.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. this is true

[murloc]

9. I hate cockfighting and book banning

But I hate book banning even more.

[idgiehkt]

57. not banning them

asking them not to use the USPS to promote illegal activities

The legal notice informed Amazon that "unless these magazine are removed immediately, The HSUS will have no choice but to initiate legal action" under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits corporations from selling goods in the District in any manner that is contrary to a "requirement of federal law."
http://tinyurl.com/kq3ko

But like I said, that link is over a year old. I wonder what is going on with this....

edited for link

[eggman67]

95. Amazon is not using the USPS to promote illegal activities

They don't ship, they take orders and provide the info to the publishers. The publishers ship.

[MNDemNY]

97. Via ups...no US mail.

[realisticphish]

10. Amazon sells international, too

in some places there are no laws against it:shrug:

I wouldn't have a problem with them not selling the magazines, but I also support their right to sell them, and everyone else's right to not buy from them for that reason, if they are so inclined

[LisaM]

11. I don't buy from Amazon anyway

I buy from a local indie bookseller and she does not sell cockfighting magazines. In fact, she also doesn't carry magazines on NASCAR or lots of other things. Is she censoring those publications?

Censorship means not allowing someone to publish. If a store chooses not to carry it, that is not censorship.

I don't understand why people buy from Amazon anyway. Lots of local bookstores in Seattle have closed or been bought out since they arrived on the scene. I prefer to support a local dealer.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. In the OP...

they're talking about charging Amazon with a federal law to force them to stop selling them. That is censorship.

[LisaM]

18. Well what's wrong with Amazon, anyway?

Why would they sell such a thing? With the kind of influence they (unfortunately) have, they could really make a dent in sales and send a message.

[Bluebear]

20. I would email them

In fact, I will.

I'm guessing they carry the magazine for the simple reason that it's available. There's nothing wrong with asking them to stop carrying it.

[idgiehkt]

65. the best things in life are free

but you can save them for the birds and bees.

Just give me money, that's what I want
that's what I want...

[Lone_Star_Dem]

16. It's legal in three US states

Unless one of these states has recently changed their laws they are, New Mexico, Louisiana, and Oklahoma.

It seems to me that working on these states to outlaw the barbaric practice would be a better plan.


On edit: I thought New Mexico changed their law, but I cannot find proof.

[flvegan]

25. New Mexico banned it this year, I believe.

Unsure when the law goes into effect.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

29. Thanks!

I was driving myself nuts looking for it. I really thought they had though.

[northzax]

64. Lousiana did as well

just this month. goes into effect August of 2008. It is the last state to allow the activity. As of August 1, 2008, cockfighting will be illegal in every US state.

[idgiehkt]

81. Wow, I didn't know that.

That is wonderful news. Whoda thunk.

:woohoo:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

108. Wonderful!

I'm curious why it will take so long to go into effect. Do you happen to know?

[northzax]

116. most laws take a while

in the case of lousiana, it lets breeders sell off their stock, and stops people from simply killing all the gamecocks right off the bat.

[Kajsa]

17. Holy crap!

" First Amendment rights?"

Yeah- I know all about them.

Ah- cockfighting is ILLEGAL ( except for two states).

So, in all fairness to first amendment rights, the child pornography
industry, which is illegal,exploits and destroys children, should
also have the " right" to distribute and sell their magazines?

[Bluebear]

19. Is child porn legal in some states?

It would have to be to support this argument.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

21. is child porn even legal in any country?

[Kajsa]

I see what you're saying.

I wish cockfighting was illegal in all states.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

26. even so you should be able to write about it.

[Bluebear]

27. I wish it was illegal too.

:hug:

[Kajsa]

31. Thanks, Bluebear!

I needed that.
;-)

:hug:

[mondo joe]

30. Me too. But it would - and should - still be legal to write about it.

I'm not jumping on your censorship bandwagon.

[northzax]

66. as of August 1, 2008

it will be, when Louisiana's law goes into effect.

[mondo joe]

22. It's legal to write about things that are illegal.

The production of child porn can only be accomplished through breaking laws, however.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

24. good point!

[pitohui]

71. yeah otherwise there would be no caper novels or murder mysteries! EOM

.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. There needs to be a Godwins law equivalent of child molestation.

[Beelzebud]

28. High Times has been in print for 30 years.

People like you always love to use child porn as the excuse to censor.

Marijuana is illegal, and yet High Times has been in print for 30 years. Do you think they should be run out of business?

[eggman67]

32. And what's more

Amazon sells "High Times"

http://amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/103-6596793-5875851?initialSearch=1&url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=high+times&Go.x=7&Go.y=10

Cockfighting sucks, but censorship sucks even more. Good for Amazon.

[Kajsa]

34. " People like you"?

I have no problem with High Times, whatsoever.
I use to read it, back in the days.

Medicinal pot is legal in CA( state law), even though the
Feds are trying to ( and succeeding) in shutting
down the distribution centers.

[mondo joe]

36. Wait a minute - you appear to be saying High Times is ok because meedicinal pot is

legal in one state.

Sure you want to go down that road?

[Kajsa]

38. How about Oregon?

Euthanasia is legal there, not medicinal pot?

[mondo joe]

40. So if it's legal somewhere you're okay with Amazon selling books and magazines

about it?

[Kajsa]

43. What is your point?

Rather than draw me out-
what are you getting at?

[mondo joe]

61. Simple: If you say its being legal in one state is justification to sell High Times,

the same principle should apply to cockfighting publications.

[Kajsa]

120. OK, I see your point.

It has more to do with opposing the sale of magazines that
exploit/hurt/kill anyone.

That may be an infringement of their first amendment rights to you,
but I see it differently.

Idgie has a great reply to the "censorship" issue that is NOT the issue.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1387562&mesg_id=1388331

Frankly, I was surprised to see how many here put the censorship
issue- not the pressure to stop sales issue- ahead of the welfare
and safety of animals.

To each his/her own.

[Toasterlad]

33. Am I the Only One Who Finds the Title of the OP Hilarious?

[Kajsa]

37. Depends on how you look at it- and read it.

;-)

[flvegan]

35. Amazon also sells books glorifying dog fighting, I believe.

They sell High Times. They don't sell Hustler. Selective "censorship" I guess.

[Kajsa]

41. Hi fivegan.

Yep, that IS my main point that got lost in the
First Amendment debate.

They can choose not to sell some magazines.

They've done so with Hustler, but not animal fighting?

Those are some fu*ked up priorities, IMHO.


Bring on the flames.

Somehow, I don't think our founding fathers had blood sports
and child pornography in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. Oh, I doubt that.

Both Washington and Jefferson enjoyed cockfighting personally, and I'll have to assume they weren't in favor of outlawing discussions of it.

[Kajsa]

46. I never knew that!

EOM.

[eggman67]

42. Thas't not censorship

"They sell High Times. They don't sell Hustler. Selective "censorship" I guess."

That's a retailer exercising their free choice of which products they wish to retail. Censorship is using force of law to prevent them from retailing the product of their choice as suggested in the OP.

I'd love to know what "Federal Law" they think Amazon is violating.

[LostinVA]

47. They should use their free choice of which products to retail

and stop selling things glorifying animal cruelty.

On edit: Why are you calling censorship in your post above and now it's "free choice?"

[eggman67]

52. Because using force of law

As suggested in the OP is by definition censorship.

Amazon choosing not to sell Hustler magazine is by definition not censorship.

[LostinVA]

54. Then it won't be censorship if they choose not to sell cockfighting magazines

[eggman67]

58. I never said it would. n/t

[LostinVA]

60. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1387562&mesg_id=1387887

[eggman67]

74. That refers to the OP

The OP advocates force of law to copmel amazon to stop selling these magazines.


FORCE OF LAW = CENSORSHIP

[northzax]

75. like moby dick?

old yeller? where the red fern grows?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. LOL!

:rofl:

[northzax]

98. ooh, I forgot Black Beauty

Seabiscuit, well, pretty much any book that ever had an animal in it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. I suspect censorship's got something to do with it.

There must be some kind of added regulation or hoop they have to jump through involving selling pornography online. Or if they did, all the prudes would go nuts over it and boycott. Something like that.

I doubt Amazon's taking some sort of moral stance on selling Hustler.

[eggman67]

70. Well I agree that their not making a moral stance...

...regarding Hustler. I think they're making a business decision which is well within their rights. My point is that they're not being compelled by force of law not to carry Hustler. Tho article in the OP advocates using force of law to compel Amazon not to carry these magazines. I think that's wrong.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

73. Right, but something's compelling them to not carry it.

And it doesn't have to be government to be censorship.

[eggman67]

86. Just about any communcations textbook will disagree with that

But it's not a point I feel like arguing so I'll just agree to disagree.


I was a communications major and every prof I had drilled in the concept "censorship requires force of law"

[idgiehkt]

51. Animal Welfare Act

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


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.

[eggman67]

56. That wont fly

Amazon is not using the U.S. Mail service. They just provide the name & address to the publisher. The publisher is using the mail service.


I'm not convinced this law would pass constitutional muster anyway.

[idgiehkt]

77. If a suit is filed, it will be interesting to watch and see

I have a feeling that Amazon may come to their senses. There is no reason this crap can't be ordered direct from the publisher, instead of Amazon acting as the middle man.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

117. would you really want a bookseller to kowtow to public opinion?

think about it. you are offended by this book. someone else is offended by books about gay rights. do we really want to start legistlating book sellers?

[flvegan]

83. Wanna bet?

"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."

One could easily argue that the internet, upon which order is placed, is an interstate instrumentality. Considering what's in those publications, they most certainly do further animal fighting ventures.

[idgiehkt]

87. that is what I was just thinking about.

Another thing...I remember about 20 years ago, the feds seized the mailing list of "High Times". I went to my exes house to find his dad frantically disassembling his grow room. His neighbors were over there, and they had disassembled their grow room just prior, and they were working on his. His dad was like a man possessed, I have never seen him move that fast. I don't think anything ever came of it, I guess they were looking for big fish, but it would be nice if they could use these mailing lists, which now violate federal law, to shut down the animal fighting branches of organized crime, which because of the illegal guns, drugs, and gambling involved, is what it amounts to.

[eggman67]

92. Yes you could argue that

I wouldn't buy it, and I don't think a judge will either, but that's just my opinion. It's also questionable as to whetehr Amazon can be held responsible for the content of a magazine they take orders for. I doub't they read every issue so I don't see how they could know with certaintiy whether or not the magazine promotes a specific venture or simply writes about the practice in general.

[flvegan]

103. No? Then you should read this

(3) the term `instrumentality of interstate commerce' means any written, wire, radio, television or other form of communication in, or using a facility of, interstate commerce;'

That's how the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007 reads.

[eggman67]

113. But what of my other point

This is still third party content, and Amazon should be protected by 47 USC 230, as was eBay.

[flvegan]

114. I think that would only work

if, say, one of the magazines went after amazon.com for pulling their desire to sell it. I thought that's what eBay's thing was, but I'm not sure, tbh.

[LanternWaste]

39. No accounting for the tastes of those who enjoy abuse...

No accounting for the tastes of those who enjoy abuse-- or even those who indirectly profit off of it. I suppose it's a mindset I'll never understand.

[Kajsa]

45. Me neither, LanternWaste.

:pals:

[LanternWaste]

119. Well, you're A-OK in my book...

Well, you're A-OK in my book despite your thing for the Seahawks... :evilgrin:

[Kajsa]

123. LOL!

And to think I didn't even care about football for the longest time.

-Sigh- Seven years in Seattle and Bremerton and now I'm a Seahawks fan!

:hi: ;-)

[pitohui]

68. they are not violating any federal law by selling these magazines

for god's sake, hsus will not be happy until all of the game fighting varieties are extinct, will they? and then the literature must be burned so that it will never be known that these birds ever existed on the earth

what the hell is wrong w. these people, honestly?

[flvegan]

84. Which animal fighting "varieties" exactly

are you supporting here? I'm curious.

[pitohui]

91. you seriously want me to list dozens of varieties of gamecocks?

oh i get it by use of the sarcastic quotes you make it obvious that you don't even know what a variety is

the domestic chicken goes back thousands of years and there are a great many heirloom and little known varieties, and not all of them for food, but for fighting, for showing, hell, they even have a breed to lay different colored "easter eggs" the auracana -- i used to have these way back when, there are little bantam silkies bred to incubate eggs, there are dozens of specialized varieties

chickens want to fight, i don't have to like it, and in my case i kept only one cock to several hens to prevent any fighting, but the reality of the species is that its natural instincts tell males to fight other males

i don't support setting up birds to fight and gambling on the outcome, however, nor do i support less diversity in the gene pool rather than more diversity

many breeds are listed at the oklahoma state dept of animal science website -- unfortunately most of these breeds have a purpose, such as providing food, or for fighting, so i'm sure you'd object to their existence on their earth

i hope at least the ornamental varieties will meet w. your approval?

[flvegan]

104. Look

in reading your post, it appeared by "varieties" you meant the sport, not breeds.

"so i'm sure you'd object to their existence on their earth"
Um, yeah, okay, love. That was QUITE the leap. You're going to pull a muscle knee-jerking like that.

[MonkeyFunk]

79. good for Amazon!

Booksellers have traditionally led the fight against censorship. Nice to see the newer companies taking up the battle.

[alcibiades_mystery]

85. Chcickens are lesser than dogs

This we learned from our Great DU Ethicists yesterday in a profound discussion...

:sarcasm:

[pitohui]

99. chickens are not lesser than dogs, however chickens have a different social psychology

again, let me be clear -- i don't support cockfighting and when i kept chickens i was always sure to have only one cock so that there would be no fighting

however, the reality of chicken psychology is that the males live to fight and fuck, that's just the way they are programmed by genetics -- it is their nature to fight

dogs do not have an automatic and instinctive to desire to immediately kill all other male dogs, as they descend from wolves, a pack animal, and had to be able to operate at least somewhat harmoniously as part of a herd without constantly fighting to the death -- i think it would strike most people as less natural to encourage dogs to fight and we may question how the dogs were trained to fight

i don't support cockfighting or dogfighting, but nor do i pretend to imagine that people who do support these sports are going to start molesting children or that they are just terrible monsters, life is more complex than that i think

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

106. How about bug fighting?

Put bugs in a matchbox, they'll fight each other. Is that the equivalent of dog fighting?

[alcibiades_mystery]

109. You tell me

Ya fuckin' Kant. :-)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

110. Bugs are lesser than dogs.

Seems pretty obvious to me. Don't you agree?

[yurbud]

115. Is cockfighting like Puppetry of the Penis?

[Nutmegger]

118. I just bought some stuff off Amazon.

And now with this, I won't hesitate to do business with them again. Censorship is inherently evil.

If you don't like it, look the other way. Free speech is all about tolerating what you don't like and saying what you want to say. It's not a one-way street.

[Kajsa]

126. I can't say it any better than Idgie,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1387562&mesg_id=1388331