Shame on Amazon.com...

[prariechiken]

From the info I've found on the organization, (check out www.activistcash.com), the organization is not affiliated with your local humane society ran shelters. If you are going to donate to someone, support your local shelters. The last I heard, organization was involved in an investigation into some misuse of funds they collected for "Katrina victims", as well as some people finding out they rescued their pets, but never had their pets returned to them. I am against animal abuse and all, but please be careful who you do intend to help when you make donations. Your local shelters need the funds alot more than the national org organization. And don't get me started on PETA....extremists no matter what cause they champion are scary in this day and age. I'll need to look, but I am sure I found somewhere that organization and PETA are associated with one another...I'll need to refind my facts...

 

[prariechiken]

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/136

This link goes to the organization explanation and PETA links. Great website for checking into anyone you plan on donating to.

 

[HandsomeBuff]

I had a friend who was a vet tech in NY and delt with alot of the sad sad cases that came in do to Pit fighting and other inhumane treatment of our beloved little friends, and the fact that a recognized and repitible reseller marketed these is absolutely disgusting. I am glad action was taken.

 

[Varisha]

Here is a quote from the last link prariechiken posted...

Here is two connection to PETA one is indirect the other direct

Indirect: they are both animal rights groups not animail welfare groups.

direct: organization hired PETA employees along with John "J.P." Goodwin, who has been reported as admiting arson tatics when he was trying to make an attack against the fur trade. http://www.activistcash.com/biography.cfm/bid/3364

In 1986 John McArdle, then organization’s Director of Laboratory Animal Welfare, told Washingtonian magazine that organization was “definitely shifting in the direction of animal rights faster than anyone would realize from our literature.”

The group completed its animal-rights transformation during the 1990s, changing its personnel in the process. organization assimilated dozens of staffers from PETA and other animal-rights groups, even employing John “J.P.” Goodwin, a former Animal Liberation Front member and spokesman with a lengthy arrest record and a history of promoting arson to accomplish animal liberation.

The change brought more money and media attention. Hoyt explained the shift in 1991, telling National Journal, “PETA successfully stole the spotlight … Groups like ours that have plugged along with a larger staff, a larger constituency … have been ignored.” Hoyt agreed that PETA’s net effect within the animal-rights movement was to spur more moderate groups to take tougher stances in order to attract donations from the public. “Maybe.” Hoyt mused, “the time has come to say, ‘Since we haven’t been successful in getting half a loaf, let’s go for the whole thing.’”

I'm also tossing in this more resent artical on organization for your reading pleasure...
http://www.supportiowasfarmers.org/activistnews/fullarticle.aspx?artid=1075

here is one quote from that artical...

Pacelle suggested using the term ''Canine Americans'' instead of dogs to emphasize the rights of these animals.

Note that Wayne Pacelle is the President of organization.​

 

[Marion]

Just a note of interest and possibly part of what Amazon.com could use as a defense for the cockfighting magazines... New Mexico just in the past couple of months outlawed cockfighting, I think the ban goes into effect July1... Louisiana is the only state left that has not banned cockfighting.

 

[schmism]

Quote:
That was my first question. If its not explicitly illegal in all states, then I am forced to stomach the idea that its ok for them to sell the mags (regardless if i like the content or not).

after all were do you draw the line.... I cant have my "guns and amo" because it features automatic assult rifles? How about playboy? How about weight lifting mags... they have to "support" drug and "supliment" use.... What about the Scientific American sitting on my desk that has an artical about gentic muniuplation?

Just because i dont like the subject material i can not support the idea of removing the content that is not excpicity illegal in all states.

It pains me to see the extent others will go to, try to remove content they "personally" find objectionable.

 

[maggiePI]

I just wrote them and said I would use all the wonderful info available on their site and then purchase from another company after receiving an email back from them defending their sales. I think it is the best way to voice an opinion.

 

[Spydrworks]

http://www.petcaretips.net/law-against-animal-fighting.html

This website has the actual written code against animal fighting for reference. Section C is where the lawsuit against Amazon.com comes in.

"(c) Use of Postal Service or other interstate instrumentality for
promoting or furthering animal fighting venture

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."

 

[Spydrworks]

Quote:
That is an excellent way to voice an opinion!! Bravo!

If you really think of it, why have they refused to stop selling these few magazines? Why are they 'risking' their reputation? What do they really have to lose dropping those magazine sales? It's senseless. Amazon.com can continue being a successful giant company without these magazines. This whole issue shows me that the front runners of Amazon.com are heartless and in the fight to satisfy their egotistical power hungry appetites are hurting the company's reputation.

I hope organization succeeds in the lawsuit to give people who do support animal fighting a good kick in the a$$. Someone's gotta do it and it's organizations like organization who have the money and the power to challenge giants like Amazon.com and it's not like these magazines are small productions. They recuit for and support very large animal fighting rings. We're talking a multimillion dollar (if not multibillion) support venture. It has good potential for making a significant dent in animal fighting...and that's the bottom line of what this entire issue is about...to end a morbidly wasteful practice.

 

[pipermark]

Quote:
Ok , this post should be actually 4 - one where people voice their opinions of cock fighting, another where the voice thier opinion of the 2 animal rights organizations, 3, where they voice their opionion on Amazon for selling material that features cock fighting (by the way enough people send emails like that one person and Amazon probably would get them off) and 4 a discusion of the legal issues involved.

Discussion number 4:

Since Amazon is not fighting cocks what New Mexico isnt relevant (not trying to be mean here, and I am personally glad they did it). What is relevant is, if this was a criminal trial, is the US postal law that someone pointed out. If this was a criminal trial , it would be argued that the intent of that law was to stop the transportation of things involved in the acutal fighting process (flyers promoting upcoming event etc). The first Amendment ( I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. ))

A consituional issue would come into play, that would question if the scope of the US postal law were meant to include magazines on the topic of cock fighting and by extensions, books on the subject, books that contian references or accounts of cock fights , etc), then the law would be in violation of the Bill of Rights first Amendment, and by strict inturpertation it would be IMHO.

However, as I have previoulsy stated this is a CIVIL trial, and all bets are off. The only way the Bill of Rights gets in this baby if
1. The judge were do not allow the trial based on constitutional issues
2 The judge overturns the verdict and award based on constitutional issues
3. A higher court overturns the verdict.