eBay auction to benefit murderer proceeds

[proud2BlibKansan]

EBay auction to benefit Roeder defense proceeds

By JUDY L. THOMAS
The Kansas City Star
Breaking News

An eBay auction to raise money for the man charged with killing a Wichita abortion doctor launched Sunday night despite eBay’s pledge to nix it.

But organizers posted items that were less contentious than those they’d originally planned to sell, and they used spellings that make searches difficult.

“I really am hopeful that eBay can see that once this is up, that it is not a glorification of violence,” said auction organizer Dave Leach, an abortion opponent from Iowa. “If the auction stays up, it will only be because eBay has been shamed into recognizing the nonviolent nature of the items.”

EBay officials were not available Sunday for comment. But last week, they said the proposed listings violated the company’s policy regarding offensive material.

“We do not oppose all listings that raise money for legal defense funds,” said Jack Christin Jr., eBay’s associate general counsel for government relations, in a Friday statement. “However, our policy does not permit listings that benefit someone charged with or convicted of a crime.”

more . . . http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/1543869.html

[sinkingfeeling]

1. I found this one and am currently contacting Ebay. Since it's to benefit someone charged with murder

http://cgi.ebay.com/Drawings-Commissioned-by-Scott-Roeder_W0QQitemZ200401118000QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Drawings?hash=item2ea8d66330

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. Thank you

Sounds like Roeder's allies are sneaking these items in. All we can do is look for them and report.

[ET Awful]

3. Hell, if you didn't already know he was demented, the fact that he called the

so-called artist "talented" should cement it for you. It looks like something my nephew drew when he was in the 5th grade.

[CatWoman]

7. where the hell have you been????

you don't know how much I missed seeing those two pics of your gorgeous kitties!!!!!

:hi:

[ET Awful]

9. I've been around occasionally.

Just really busy lately :)

How ya been?

[CatWoman]

18. i'm doing fine

:)

give Quinn a belly rub for me :)

[derby378]

6. Ooooh, $51.99 for doodles!

I think I'll pass. Dang.

[DearAbby]

13. Looks like they removed it

got page with this:

This listing (200401118000) has been removed, or this item is not available.

*
Please check that you've entered the correct item number
*
Listings that have ended 90 or more days ago will not be available for viewing.

[hobbit709]

4. I reported it to ebay as I am a Seller.

along with some of the other offensive items the same seller has.
Stating they are to benefit charged/convicted criminals.

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. Thank you

[Hekate]

5. KnR. Thanks, those of you who can research and report this to eBay. What a hideous group. nt

[ET Awful]

8. Looks like they've pulled the auction . . . I reported it too.

I went back to look now and it's gone.

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. Thank you so much!!

[thesquanderer]

10. I hate to say it, but I think eBay is wrong to pull the stuff

re: "our policy does not permit listings that benefit someone charged with or convicted of a crime.”

Convictions, okay.

But, no matter how public or heinous the crime, our system says that a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. I don't think it is right that eBay should pull listings designed to benefit someone who has been charged with -- but not yet convicted -- of a crime.

Someday an innocent person may be charged (it happens), and want to sell things on eBay to raise money for his defense. Do we want to prohibit that as a matter of policy? Would you feel this was right if you had been wrongly charged of something?

[PeaceNikki]

11. There are other methods of raising funds. eBay is a private company and can choose to not

involve themselves in this type of thing. I think it's a wise move.

[thesquanderer]

12. wise?

re: "I think it's a wise move."

I guess it may be wise from a corporate PR perspective. You're right that, as a private business, they can do what they want. And the move may indeed be good business. It's just not a very "american" thing to do, to treat an accused person as if he were already found guilty. I guess I'm more of an idealist.

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. I understand your point but consider this:

Roeder is from here and so is the woman running this auction. She has other opportunities to raise funds for him. Plus she is a very wealthy woman who may have the funds to buy him the defense she believes he is entitled to.

This auction on eBay is not because they need to raise money. It's for publicity. For that reason it needs to be stopped.

[mrbarber]

15. It's not American to let a company the freedom to run it the way they see fit?

They also don't allow Nazi memorabilia to be auctioned off, do you have an issue with that?

[thesquanderer]

22. answering your questions

re: "It's not American to let a company the freedom to run it the way they see fit? "

Sure it is, and it's just as American for people to give their opinions about the decisions the company makes. I'm not suggesting that anyone force eBay to do things differently, it's ultimately up to them. (also see my message #21)


re: "They also don't allow Nazi memorabilia to be auctioned off, do you have an issue with that?"

No. (reason explained in message #20)

[PeaceNikki]

16. It's not "American" to dictate what private entities do.

So... I guess *I* am more of an "idealist".

[thesquanderer]

21. idealism

I am not trying to dictate what ebay does, nor as I saying that the government should dictate what ebay does. So I think we are on the same side there, as I agree with your line "It's not "American" to dictate what private entities do. " For reasons I explained in (and elaborated on in message 20), I don't agree with eBay here, but I"m with you, I'm not for anyone telling them they have to change it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. The government is not telling eBay what to do

eBay pulled the items. No one told them to remove them.

[thesquanderer]

I know

It is their choice, their discretion. And it's their right. As I said, I just question the underlying policy in this case, where ebay is objecting not to the item being auctioned, but to where the money is going. Yes, it's their right, but as a matter of policy, that can also stop wrongly-accused people from trying to raise money by selling things on eBay, which I think is unfortunate. Perhaps it would be better if the policy were somewhat more narrowly defined. It seems overly broad to me to have a blanket prohibition on listings where the proceeds benefit someone who has been charged (but not found guilty). I could see, for instance, prohibiting such items if they are somehow related to or seem to be glorifying the crime. Which might have been the case here... and would be more justifiable, I think, than the blanket prohibition described.

[thesquanderer]

25. I know

It is their choice, their discretion. And it's their right. As I said, I just question the underlying policy in this case, where ebay is objecting not to the item being auctioned, but to where the money is going. Yes, it's their right, but as a matter of policy, that can also stop wrongly-accused people from trying to raise money by selling things on eBay, which I think is unfortunate. Perhaps it would be better if the policy were somewhat more narrowly defined. It seems overly broad to me to have a blanket prohibition on listings where the proceeds benefit someone who has been charged (but not found guilty). I could see, for instance, prohibiting such items if they are somehow related to or seem to be glorifying the crime. Which might have been the case here... and would be more justifiable, I think, than the blanket prohibition described.

[sinkingfeeling]

19. Did you have a chance to see the 'art' that was being auctioned? It had some freak holding up a head

labeled 'Tiller'. Ebay is absolutely correct in forbidding this stuff.

[thesquanderer]

20. good point

I did not see the "art" -- and I do realize that ebay has an interest in prohibiting offensive material from their site. They do not have to offer the equivalent of first amendment protection of things that people may find offensive.

I guess my problem is not one of their right to prohibit an item based on what it is, but rather, prohibiting an item based on where the proceeds are going. If they want to keep the proceeds out of the hands of convicts or illegal operations of any sort, that's one thing. But if, as a matter of policy, they will prevent proceeds from going to people who are merely *accused* of crimes, that doesn't sit so well with me as blanket policy. I"m not talking about this case in particular, but rather how such a rule could affect other people and situations.