New Law Cracks Down on Animal Fighting and Puppy Mills - Amazon Begs To Differ

May 23, 2008 1:24 PM

A new US Federal law cracks down on animal fighting, bans foreign puppy mill imports, and increases penalties for animal cruelty. The US Senate yesterday followed the lead of the House of Representatives and overrode President Bush’s veto of the Farm Bill. In addition to strengthening animal cruelty laws, the Act adds a provision to federal law to make almost any form of animal fighting a federal felony. The Humane Society of the United States is taking legal action against Amazon.com, as the main distribution hub for animal fighting magazines, paraphernalia, and DVDs. Amazon even has a community for cockfighting. Amazon claim that the legal action contravenes their First Amendment rights and have vowed to continue selling cockfighting materials. You can tell Jeff Bezos what you think of this (via the HSUS website).

The 2008 Farm Bill is a landmark for animal cruelty campaigners. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer announced a total ban on the slaughter at meat plants of cows too sick or weak to stand. The Act quadruples Federal fines for violations of the Animal Welfare Act for the first time in 20 years, strengthening the fight against domestic puppy mills. Imports from foreign puppy mills have been banned. All major forms of animal fighting have now been made a felony.
Following a bill that banned just cockfighting and dogfighting last year, the Humane Society of the United States announced that The Gamecock magazine has agreed to remove all advertisements for fighting dogs, fighting birds and weapons used in animal fighting. As part of the settlement, the magazine agreed to request that their main distribution hub, Amazon.com, remove the magazine for one year until they have demonstrated their compliance. As well as the community for cockfighting, Amazon also have a community for dogfighting, although anti-cruelty campaigners appear to have taken this over in a social-tagging triumph ... :-) Many would argue that Amazon's first amendment claim is specious -- after all, would they sell snuff videos or child pornography?

posted by Susurration (83 comments total)

News to me... Thanks, S!
posted by BobFrapples at 1:31 PM on May 23

Well what if they were books against dogfighting? Wouldn't a dogfighting tag be appropriate then? If you check out a book from the library about the history of pedophilia it isn't a how to and it doesn't automatically make you a child molester. I'm wary of this because it does seem like a free speech issue, of course Amazon should stop selling books that teach you how to dogfight but at the same time distinctions should be made in regards to a book's content.
posted by PostIronyIsNotaMyth at 1:36 PM on May 23

Mr. Bush has said he wants to sharply limit government subsidies to farmers at a time of near-record commodity prices and soaring global demand for grain.

When Bush has a change of heart with regard to corporate welfare and tries to curtail it, there's Congress, ready to nip that effort in the bud.

(Technically, the Senate merely showed itself ready and willing to override Bush's veto.)
posted by yath at 1:40 PM on May 23

Censorship is clearly the answer!
posted by Artw at 1:40 PM on May 23

Yes, PostIronyIsNotaMyth, that did occur to me. I noticed with amusement that the products that were still stocked in Amazon's dogfighting section related to airplane "dogfights" or to critiques of dogfighting. But I suspect that this is in response to the social tagging warfare that I noted above ...
posted by Susurration at 1:41 PM on May 23 [1 favorite]

Books about is one thing; the cruelty etc to real animals, another. Was that filly that got killed (put to sleep) at the Kentucky Derby an example of cruelty? With what is going on with the American economy, soon, all these animals and our pets will be....our for meals! that will prevent cruelty from abuse.
posted by Postroad at 1:56 PM on May 23

I'm totally behind putting a stop to animal fighting as an organized activity. Running a dog fighting operation (or getting caught at a dog fight watching and betting)? That's a bust, and rightly so.

I don't, however, like the idea of laws or court orders suppressing published material, even how-to manuals about illegal activities. Usual slippery slope argument: next goes the Anarchist's Cookbook (lame as it is); then books about organizing protests and civil disobedience or designing p2p networks; then books explaining any activity a particular administration or important lobbyist doesn't like.

On the other-other hand, it's only government censorship I oppose. Censorship by social pressure from private individuals orgroups? Boycots? Anti-Jeff-Bezos marches? Angry mobs of little old ladies in tennis shoes? Go for it!
posted by jfuller at 1:57 PM on May 23 [10 favorites]

I am hugely in favor on anything that limits, restricts, or hurts puppy-mills. My mom rescued a small dachshund which had been used as a stud in a puppy-mill operation, and it was one of the more tragic thing I've seen. When she got him, he still wasn't used to walking on the ground, because he had spent his entire life walking on a wire floor. He was terrified of water, since he had never been inside, and associated it with rain and thunder, and when I made the mistake of taking a flash picture of him, he became so frightened, he lost bladder control and had to hide under a table for about a half an hour.

When I walk through a store and I see the cockapoos or puggles (which in my day we called "mixed breeds" or the more technical term "mutts") selling for several hundred dollars, I think about that that little 'hund, and I wish horrible things on the heads of uncaring breeders looking at the dogs as nothing more than a paycheck.
posted by quin at 1:58 PM on May 23 [3 favorites]

When cockfighting is censored, only censors will be cocks!
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:58 PM on May 23 [3 favorites]

Yeah, animal cruelty? Booo!
Banning books? Also booo!
posted by mrnutty at 2:00 PM on May 23

Before the "no one gives a shit" reality took over, I had the brief urge to tell Jeff Bezos how I support freedom of speech.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 2:02 PM on May 23 [4 favorites]

jfuller - That’s pretty much how American censorship has always worked – The censorship that almost destroyed the comics industry in the 50s was more a result of pressure being put on distributors as it was of legislation (there was only small scale local legislation in the end, much of it struck down).

It’s still, IMHO, pretty dodgy. How about I decide I don’t like books about gay people, and pester Amazon to stop carrying them?
posted by Artw at 2:07 PM on May 23 [1 favorite]

Artw, would you like a book on "how to beat up gay people"?
posted by desjardins at 2:13 PM on May 23

Amazon also have a community for dogfighting

Those poor pilots!
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 2:20 PM on May 23 [2 favorites]

It should be noted that the cockfighting link also contains a different kind of cock than the one referenced in the post.
posted by !Jim at 2:25 PM on May 23 [2 favorites]

fun, fun, fun.
posted by Artw at 2:26 PM on May 23

Michael Vick's public pillory last year was rich and satisfying to watch. Americans lurve their animals, and Mr. Vick is now more hated than even O.J.
posted by porn in the woods at 2:27 PM on May 23

What's that thing about freedom of speech that we would personally deem unpleasant?
posted by box at 2:39 PM on May 23

Many would argue that Amazon's first amendment claim is specious -- after all, would they sell snuff videos or child pornography?

Not me, fuck that nanny state bullshit.

Artw, would you like a book on "how to beat up gay people"?

There are plenty of books about how to beat people up. Should any books about fighting or martial arts be banned because the techniques could be used by bad people? No.
posted by delmoi at 2:43 PM on May 23 [1 favorite]

a book on "how to beat up gay people"?

Unless there's a fabulously exclusive martial arts school all the homosexuals are keeping a secret, some of the products sold here should be of use.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 2:44 PM on May 23

I wanted to respond to jfuller (with whom I agree), by arguing that there is no such thing as free speech anyway. Our right to express an opinion or take a position is always limited by an invisible line that balances the interests of the individual with those of the wider community or state. Where that line should be drawn depends on your individual worldview. Where it is drawn at any time comes and goes a little ... I actually found most of Amazon's items irreproachable. But as with child porn, if Amazon are selling DVDs that show cockfights, they are making profitable the exploitation of animals who don't have a choice about engaging in this illegal activity.
posted by Susurration at 2:45 PM on May 23 [2 favorites]

Even worse, I recently discovered that adorable animals are routinely raised in factory farms, slaughtered, and eaten. By people.
posted by mullingitover at 2:50 PM on May 23 [2 favorites]

Something very weird going on in the single review for that DVD.
posted by Artw at 2:51 PM on May 23

Unless there's a fabulously exclusive martial arts school all the homosexuals are keeping a secret...

Yeah ... that's the school where we learn how to cockfight!
posted by ericb at 2:52 PM on May 23 [7 favorites]

It seems that you'll get spams from the HSUS if you use the form, unfortunately. Otherwise, I'd have used it to send Amazon a message of support. I dislike animal fights, but I like banning "degenerate" books even less!

And at least here in New Mexico, there is more to this issue than just animal cruelty -- there's a cultural aspect to cockfighting & dog fights as well, one that really makes me suspect that there's more going on as to why this particular act of animal cruelty has become such a huge issue, while people are allowed (nay, encouraged) to eat factory-farmed meat and leave their pets outside for hours at a time.

At best, this is a red herring issue that allows people to feel as if they've done something for animals, while still living in an overwhelmingly cruel society; at worst, it's nothing but bashing on the cultural practices of people without power. Either way, Amazon ought to be able to sell whatever books they want to, and their customers ought to be able to choose to buy them or not; a boycott is fine, but this kind of pressure-lawsuit nonsense is a bit much.
posted by vorfeed at 2:54 PM on May 23 [2 favorites]

Yeah ... that's the school where we learn how to cockfight!

Ssshhh!!
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:55 PM on May 23 [2 favorites]

Say what you will about cockfighting, Gallo del Cielo is one fantas tic song.
posted by notsnot at 3:00 PM on May 23

Was that filly that got killed (put to sleep) at the Kentucky Derby an example of cruelty?

No. She had catastrophic fractures to both her front legs and as such had a zero percent chance of survival. Horses need at least three legs to have any chance, and that's even dodgy. Whatever happened to her before that, I don't know, but putting her to sleep was humane and correct. It would have also been humane and correct to put Barbaro down, but he had three legs going for him, so it's fair to say the owners made an appropriate decision.

As far as dogfighting and cock-fighting being cultural, I don't particularly care. Plenty of other cultures have plenty of other ridiculously awful customs. The Aztecs, I believe, sacrificed human beings, but no one's going to argue for that to be okay to do in your spare time. I've said it before and I'll say it a thousand times more - society is judged in the end by how it chooses to treat the least among us - animals, old people, children - and when we choose badly it shows our own shortcomings.

And before you get started I don't eat factory farmed meat, either.
posted by Medieval Maven at 3:04 PM on May 23 [3 favorites]

Plenty of other cultures have plenty of other ridiculously awful customs.

The NFL and college football spring to mind.
posted by srboisvert at 3:14 PM on May 23

Well, putting the horse in the derby at all could be considered cruel, no?
posted by beerbajay at 3:15 PM on May 23

Yeah ... that's the school where we learn how to cockfight!

Ssshhh!!
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:55 PM on May 23 [1 favorite +] [!]

Dude, setting it on fire is totally cheating.
posted by The Bellman at 3:19 PM on May 23 [1 favorite]

You know, I think I need to download a cockfight video. I can't quite visualize two birds fighting. I take it the feet are involved? I know it's horrible and cruel, but I only know because everyone says so. Privately, I find the idea a little amusing. Chicken physiology just seems ill-suited for fighting.
posted by ryanrs at 3:19 PM on May 23

Aztec customs sound awesome!
posted by Artw at 3:22 PM on May 23

ryanrs - cocks raised for fighting are raised chained to little teepees or wooden tentlike things. Where I used to live, there were lots of people with these birds in the front yard. They allow them to grow long, nasty spurs, and they train the roosters to tear the shit out of one another. Like dogs, a bird that is not mean enough will be destroyed or basically tortured until it is mean enough to fight. The birds are set upon one another, frequently in a pit, and they fight until one bird is dead or totally disabled. Try to find a video if you like, but it's foul and barbaric.
posted by Medieval Maven at 3:26 PM on May 23

beerbajay: There are a *lot* of people who think that. There's a pretty large portion of the animal rights community who oppose horse racing altogether.
posted by vertigo25 at 3:29 PM on May 23

Oh. Lame.
posted by ryanrs at 3:35 PM on May 23

Huh, they're real? The ones in the previous pic looked like it was taped on.
posted by ryanrs at 3:45 PM on May 23

No, they are glued on.
posted by fixedgear at 3:58 PM on May 23

There can be prosthetic ones (metal, bone, plastic, whatever) and there are also the ones they grow naturally.
posted by Nauip at 4:06 PM on May 23

I wanted to respond to jfuller (with whom I agree), by arguing that there is no such thing as free speech anyway. Our right to express an opinion or take a position is always limited by an invisible line that balances the interests of the individual with those of the wider community or state.

I find that statement absolutely repugnant and disgusting.
posted by delmoi at 4:16 PM on May 23 [1 favorite]

delmoi, if you're willing, please expand
posted by jammy at 4:27 PM on May 23

After I graduated from high school, I spent six months in the Truk Islands. Cockfighting was popular there, but I never saw a official cockfighting event. I did however see impromptu cockfights around the neighborhood. They never resulted in the death of a bird. Left to their own devices, cocks will spar and when it's apparent that one of them is outmatched, it simply flees. In any future occasions where the birds cross paths, the loser remembers the victor and will flee again without fighting. It's pretty amazing to watch, like a dance. It wasn't anything close to the really nasty, to-the-death cockfights I've seen on youtube.

I had a wicked white fighting cock, purchased for $5, and was the reigning neighborhood champion for a few days, until some kids stole it and ate it :(
posted by mullingitover at 4:42 PM on May 23 [4 favorites]

As far as dogfighting and cock-fighting being cultural, I don't particularly care. Plenty of other cultures have plenty of other ridiculously awful customs.

Well, fine, as long as you're not going to expect any more respect than that for your own "ridiculously awful customs". When your own Niemoeller moment comes around, and it's your hobby and livelihood that's on the chopping block, I suppose you'll be perfectly happy to abide by other people's decisions, right? Even if, for example, you and your family have been living in area X and practicing custom Y for hundreds of years, and the people telling you to stop doing Y have been around for less than a hundred?

IMHO, it says a lot more when a culture is willing to look to its own practices, rather than taking the easy way out by finding a subculture to be its Judas goat. It's this kind of attitude that has turned the goal of multiculturalism inside-out -- instead of "all people are equally free to have their own customs and ideals", it has become "all people are equally free to have their own customs and ideals, as long as they can be watered-down so that they fit nicely into an afternoon Macy's parade". All part of our march toward a cowardly, passionless, milquetoast society in which no one is willing to admit to anything at all in public, lest it offend someone else.

Also, the idea that these kinds of tactics will end cockfighting and dog fighting is ridiculous -- people will still do these things, only now it'll be even more secretive than before, with even less oversight, and we'll have the bonus of occasionally using our police forces to destroy human lives along with the animal ones. Hurrah, everybody wins!
posted by vorfeed at 4:45 PM on May 23

Ban foreign puppy mill imports?? Oh, because we need to buy from all-American puppy mills? WTF?
posted by crapmatic at 5:10 PM on May 23

The Humane Society of the United States is taking legal action against Amazon.com, as the main distribution hub for animal fighting magazines, paraphernalia, and DVDs."

I wonder if I could still order Hemmingway's Death in the Afternoon with impunity.
posted by krinklyfig at 5:12 PM on May 23 [1 favorite]

Well, fine, as long as you're not going to expect any more respect than that for your own "ridiculously awful customs".

So you're saying I can go back to stabbing people and claim it's Sicilian heritage month?

ROCK!
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 5:17 PM on May 23

"Many would argue that Amazon's first amendment claim is specious -- after all, would they sell snuff videos or child pornography?"

Who is this "many"? Is this the same group in "people say"? Sure would be good to know who these idiots are who keep saying such inane things. That wouldn't be you, though, would it?

How about High Times? How about The Electric Kool Aid Acid Test? The Doors of Perception? The Anarchist's Cookbook?

Snuff films (IIRC) and child pornography are illegal by themselves in the US. I don't know that we need to make that category include all literature that may describe illegal acts.
posted by krinklyfig at 5:19 PM on May 23

Ban foreign puppy mill imports?? Oh, because we need to buy from all-American puppy mills? WTF?

I hear the PMWA (and associated unions) held strikes for days in order to get that provision. It was huge -- "Foreign Dogs Out: No Shi-tzu For Malibu" signs, impassioned speeches about the quality of US lab-or and embarko. I even heard a rumor that they beat scabs with rolled-up newspapers!
posted by vorfeed at 5:21 PM on May 23

vorfeed writes "Even if, for example, you and your family have been living in area X and practicing custom Y for hundreds of years, and the people telling you to stop doing Y have been around for less than a hundred?"

What if Y is slavery? Customs aren't sacred, but people like to claim they are. Bad customs aren't anything to be proud of. Patriarchy is something of a custom.

I don't think banning speech is a good idea, but banning animal fighting doesn't garner any sympathy from me. Sorry. Find another hobby, something that doesn't involve animal abuse.
posted by krinklyfig at 5:23 PM on May 23

Was that filly that got killed (put to sleep) at the Kentucky Derby an example of cruelty?

Yes, because horses didn't evolve to be whipped around and around in circles while being cheered at by a drunken mob of slack-jawed yokels. It shouldn't have been there in the first place. They aren't "ours".
posted by turgid dahlia at 5:56 PM on May 23

Also, for those bringing cultural relativism into this argument: don't. Some ethical systems are clearly better than others, by whatever criteria you deign to selectively apply to them. For example, involuntary female genital mutilation is objectively, universally wrong. As is forcing two animals to fight one another for our amusement. Working in metaphysical mumbo-jumbo justifications for either of those things, plus a whole slew of others, demonstrates not multicultural sensitivity but wilful immorality.
posted by turgid dahlia at 5:59 PM on May 23 [1 favorite]

What if Y is slavery? Customs aren't sacred, but people like to claim they are. Bad customs aren't anything to be proud of. Patriarchy is something of a custom.

The problem here is how we decide which customs are "bad" and which are not. In this particular case, given the extreme cruelty to animals which underpins much of our economy and mainstream culture, it seems to me as if we have very little basis on which to make this judgment objectively.

This isn't like "small culture A has slavery and big culture B denounces slavery", this is more like "small culture A practices slavery occasionally for entertainment purposes, and big culture B practices ten thousand times as much slavery for business and entertainment purposes". If this were a case of "animal cruelty is always bad", I'd have a lot more sympathy for it; instead, it seems to be "animal cruelty is only bad if you're having fun, and if that fun is also not some form of hunting, horse racing, dog racing, dog shows, rodeo, circus, or other 'approved' entertainment". Sorry, but I don't buy it -- I'm going to need a lot more than that before I'm going to support banning books or making somebody's tradition a Federal felony.

At least in this state, the urban vs. rural, rich vs. poor, and white vs. hispanic aspects of the cockfighting ban were blatantly obvious, and not particularly pleasant. Many of the people who were all for the ban would scream bloody murder up and down Cerrillos Road if somebody tried to ban the Rodeo de Santa Fe.

Some ethical systems are clearly better than others, by whatever criteria you deign to selectively apply to them.

Please prove this statement.

Be sure to show your work.
posted by vorfeed at 6:01 PM on May 23

For example, involuntary female genital mutilation is objectively, universally wrong.

Oh, come on, now. What you mean is "I think it's extra-super wrong." Yay for you, but you don't get to define universal absolutes.

(Oh, and of course I think it's wrong. But I also realize that I am not God).
posted by Bookhouse at 6:25 PM on May 23

turgid dahlia writes "For example, involuntary female genital mutilation is objectively, universally wrong."

If it's universally considered wrong then it wouldn't happen, it's only universally condemned by people who condemn it. Obviously someone thinks it's a good idea or it wouldn't happen.

turgid dahlia writes "Working in metaphysical mumbo-jumbo justifications for either of those things, plus a whole slew of others, demonstrates not multicultural sensitivity but wilful immorality."

See, but ironically your lifestyle is probably considered grievously immoral by someone, somewhere. Just what are your criteria for determining that something is objectively right or wrong?
posted by mullingitover at 6:33 PM on May 23 [1 favorite]

because horses didn't evolve to be whipped around and around in circles while being cheered at by a drunken mob of slack-jawed yokels.

Actually racehorses kind of did develop to do just that. It's not like they'd survive in the wild or anything.

Racing a horse bred to run isn't any more cruel than "making" a lab play fetch. Horses that don't want to run get pulled out of training pretty fast (at $100/day), and you can't whip a horse into running. Especially at that level, they love to run. And yes, some of them get hurt but your dog can bust an ACL or suffer from heatstroke playing that game of fetch too.

At least racehorses are treated like athletes by knowledgable animal caretekers, not fed until they are 50% overweight and then expected to do 45 minutes of wind sprints with no warm up like most pets [/rant about stupid owners who cripple their dogs]
posted by fshgrl at 6:37 PM on May 23

But we don't need to be gods to agree that certain things are better than others. When it comes to suffering, something all sentient beings are capable of, anything that inflicts it unnecessarily is unethical.

Please prove this statement.

I appreciate that the burden of proof is on me and I know this is something that wise old philosophers far more intelligent than any of us have been debating for countless centuries but I can do nothing more than refer to my first paragraph. Anything that inflicts unnecessary suffering on a sentient being is unethical. Now of course you or somebody else is going to ask me to define what is "necessary" and what is not. In this case I submit my previous two examples and will be happy to submit more, but this would be missing the point.
posted by turgid dahlia at 6:38 PM on May 23 [1 favorite]

But we don't need to be gods to agree that certain things are better than others.

Sure, if we all agree. The problem is, we don't, not even on comparatively simple issues like this one. Pretending as if there is such an agreement, and castigating those of us who do not agree, is more than a little presumptuous... and, IMHO, often leads to the suffering of sentient beings. As mullingitover pointed out, there wouldn't even be anyone to castigate if there were universal agreement on these matters.

When it comes to suffering, something all sentient beings are capable of, anything that inflicts it unnecessarily is unethical.

We really, really need a working definition of "sentient", "suffering", and "unnecessary" before we can make these kinds of universal statements. I'm not being snarky when I say that -- all three of these concepts are by no means agreed-upon, even within our own culture, much less universally. One person's unnecessary suffering is another's lunch.

In this case I submit my previous two examples and will be happy to submit more, but this would be missing the point.

Yes, it would be. For example, our culture often performs involuntary female genital mutilation. It also commonly inflicts unnecessary suffering on sentient beings, on a scale of billions, if not trillions. Any universal ethical or moral statement needs to be able to account for this behavior, and for all other human behaviors; if not, it's simply not universal.
posted by vorfeed at 7:11 PM on May 23

Are bugfights OK?

Are we going to start sweeping the ground before we walk on it like Jain holy men?
posted by Meatbomb at 7:33 PM on May 23 [1 favorite]

Are bugfights OK?

If they're bigger than you.
posted by Artw at 7:41 PM on May 23

We really, really need a working definition of "sentient", "suffering", and "unnecessary" before we can make these kinds of universal statements.

You stole the words from my mouth, but I was going to ask for a definition of "being" for bonus points. We're going to run into trouble with that (and of course even more trouble with "sentient") in the Singulitarian future, but it's around today. Is the U.S. Government or General Electric a "being," are they "sentient," and how are they considered in relation to their constituent "beings?" Does "being" mean "living thing?" Defining "life" is really fucking tough.

(What's interesting about the Jain holy men sweeping the ground is the epic microbial war you are constantly involved in. Similarly, a few years back I read about some hubbub among certain NYC Jews when they found that the water supply contained trace amounts of some harmless microscopic creature that was close enough to a lobster to be non-kosher.)
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 7:55 PM on May 23

It’s still, IMHO, pretty dodgy. How about I decide I don’t like books about gay people, and pester Amazon to stop carrying them?

Amazon is under no threat of prison, etc for not listening, and is in fact free to tell you to go peddle your papers.
posted by jonmc at 8:14 PM on May 23

vorfeed, we are a culture of laws, and we have to decide, here in this place, what is and is not acceptable. If the Philippines wants to have legal cockfighting, and they think that's OK, fine, but I do not plan on giving them any money, for example, to carry that on. If you don't get to fight chickens or dogs, I'm pretty sure you're not going to die - but one of the dogs or chickens will, and it will be gruesome and disgusting. You get to be alive and deprived of entertainment, and the animals get to avoid that kind of suffering. (And even if those animals are taken from that situation, there is a good chance they are not suitable as pets or working animals (in the case of dogs that could normally be trained to do some sort of work).)

Frankly, it's totally disingenuous to say, oh, that's depriving someone of a livelihood. Really? In the US? Where this law applies? Argue that about the Philippines or somewhere else if you like, but dogfighting is not exactly a money making venture for most of the people involved - it's organized crime, essentially, so the largest pyramid scheme ever. I'm not claiming perfection on anyone's part - least of all our deeply flawed government - but outlawing animal fighting is perfectly fine in my book. This is not class warfare on my part - I grew up in the middle of people participating in dogfighting, fighting chickens tethered in people's front yards. I don't know your situation but frankly, seeing some of those things go down, I'm happy for it to be illegal.
posted by Medieval Maven at 8:16 PM on May 23 [1 favorite]

The relativism nonsense is just that. By the same sophomoric logic, rape is just a specific example of the general class "animal abuse," since there is an animal being abused, so you can't be reasonably opposed to rape unless you're also opposed to industrial livestock practices.

Not to mention that it's a classic example of "We shouldn't bother to prohibit the bad action we can currently muster support to prohibit unless we prohibit all bad action at one fell swoop."

Many of the people who were all for the ban would scream bloody murder up and down Cerrillos Road if somebody tried to ban the Rodeo de Santa Fe.

So, this year, you ban the dogfights and cockfights. Inside a few decades, you ban the rodeo. A long while after that, you ban eating anything with a nervous system. Is this really so fucking hard to understand, or are you just using a post with the word "animal" in it to blether about your own pet concern?

Also, the idea that these kinds of tactics will end cockfighting and dog fighting is ridiculous

Okay, I'm curious. Where is the person claiming that this law will end cockfighting or dogfighting? Did the admins delete those comments, or are you just making them up because it's much easier to argue against yourself than it is to argue against real people whose opinions you can't simply make up as you go?

only now it'll be even more secretive than before, with even less oversight

What oversight is there now that will not be there if when cockfighting and dogfighting shift from being local and state offenses, except for cockfighting in Louisiana until August, to federal offenses?

Be specific.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:47 PM on May 23 [1 favorite]

Amazon even has a community for cockfighting.

How is allowing someone to tag a product with a particular word equivalent to "having a community"?
posted by jayder at 8:47 PM on May 23

Frankly, it's totally disingenuous to say, oh, that's depriving someone of a livelihood. Really? In the US? Where this law applies? Argue that about the Philippines or somewhere else if you like, but dogfighting is not exactly a money making venture for most of the people involved - it's organized crime, essentially, so the largest pyramid scheme ever.

This is a circular argument -- it's organized crime because it's illegal, and it's no problem for it to be illegal because it's just organized crime. Also, you yourself acknowledge that there are people making their livelihoods on this, just not "most" of the people involved. Part-time jobs are much the same... in fact, I'd say that our economy is itself a "pyramid scheme". But, as usual, some pyramid schemes are more equal than others!

This is not class warfare on my part - I grew up in the middle of people participating in dogfighting, fighting chickens tethered in people's front yards. I don't know your situation but frankly, seeing some of those things go down, I'm happy for it to be illegal.

To be perfectly honest, I don't see how your upbringing changes the fact that this law disproportionately affects the lower class, while the upper and middle-class are free to enjoy their own cruel animal entertainments. It may not be class warfare on your part, but it sure as hell is on the part of the law, and I think it's "totally disingenuous" to ignore that.
posted by vorfeed at 8:50 PM on May 23

The relativism nonsense is just that. By the same sophomoric logic, rape is just a specific example of the general class "animal abuse," since there is an animal being abused, so you can't be reasonably opposed to rape unless you're also opposed to industrial livestock practices.

Uh, yeah, that's exactly analogous to what I said. And you're accusing me of "arguing against myself"?

My point isn't that we can't be opposed to animal abuse. It's that we, as a society, are clearly not opposed to it, in general. Therefore, laws which claim to be motivated by animal abuse concerns, but also disproportionately affect certain cultural groups, strike me as more than a little suspect.

So, this year, you ban the dogfights and cockfights. Inside a few decades, you ban the rodeo. A long while after that, you ban eating anything with a nervous system. Is this really so fucking hard to understand, or are you just using a post with the word "animal" in it to blether about your own pet concern?

See, the problem with this progression is that many of the same people who are banning dogfights and cockfights do not want to ban the rodeo, nor do they have any intention of ever doing so, in decades or not. The rodeo is their tradition, ergo, by their definition it is not cruel. I was not describing people who admit a problem with both the rodeo and dog fighting; at least they are being honest.

Okay, I'm curious. Where is the person claiming that this law will end cockfighting or dogfighting?

"I'm totally behind putting a stop to animal fighting as an organized activity." All the "crack down on" language also suggests that an end to cockfighting and dog fights is the eventual goal.

What oversight is there now that will not be there if when cockfighting and dogfighting shift from being local and state offenses, except for cockfighting in Louisiana until August, to federal offenses?

Be specific.

I really enjoy how you already took it out! Nice debate technique. Other than that, the obvious answer would be "state and local law enforcement oversight". No matter, though, I'm sure it'll be great for these states to have yet another bullshit reason for Federal agents to come in and stretch the interstate commerce clause!
posted by vorfeed at 9:13 PM on May 23

vorfeed writes "If this were a case of 'animal cruelty is always bad', I'd have a lot more sympathy for it; instead, it seems to be 'animal cruelty is only bad if you're having fun, and if that fun is also not some form of hunting, horse racing, dog racing, dog shows, rodeo, circus, or other "approved" entertainment'. Sorry, but I don't buy it -- I'm going to need a lot more than that before I'm going to support banning books or making somebody's tradition a Federal felony."

Animal abuse is already illegal in the US, and some localities have different laws than others. We do constantly redefine what constitutes "abuse." I have no problem if animal fighting is moved under the umbrella of abuse, legally speaking. I'd also have no problem if we regulated circus and sports animals more closely, as well as factory farming. Hunting dogs are often treated well, as are race horses. People need to eat, and people are omnivores. I don't know any hunters who abide abuse of the animals they hunt.

Anyway, there is nothing persuasive in trying to claim we must fix everything if we're going to fix one thing. It doesn't work that way in reality. Change is incremental, particularly this sort of change.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:05 AM on May 24 [1 favorite]

I suppose Amazon has every right to sell this hateful garbage, but as a consumer, I also have every right to shop elsewhere. When I learned of Amazon selling animal fighting magazines (last summer?), I wrote them as much and canceled my account. I heard nothing back. Oh well. Now I shop elsewhere. Censorship is despicable and evil, but I can't, in good conscience, shop at a store that actively supports cruelty wherein the sole purpose is the entertainment of people. Obviously, Amazon doesn't have to sell this stuff; they have chosen to sell it--for profit. Amazon chooses the products they wish to distribute and surely rejects many of those products everyday. It is not censorship for a company to refuse to peddle a product. It is censorship for a society to make laws that suppress the freedom of expression--as ugly and disgusting as those expressions may be.

As a side note: I've lurked at Metafilter everyday for years and years, and this is my very first post. I'd really like to thank Matt Haughey. When I replaced my aging PC with a Mac Mini, I could connect to everyone of my favorite sites except my most favorite: Metafilter. When I emailed Matt, he patiently helped me to connect. And then gave me a free account at Metafilter. If there's a nicer, sweeter person on the internet, I don't know who it would be.
posted by belvidere at 5:10 AM on May 24 [1 favorite]

vorfeed, my point about where I grew up is that I have first hand knowledge of these practices, and I do not know if you do. But I think that if you did, your crying about the low people on the, yes, organized crime because it is illegal, totem pole here in the US would be greatly decreased if you actually give a crap about the humane treatment of animals. If you have not witnessed this practice, as it is done in the US (because I have no knowledge of how it's done elsewhere), then you need to go out there and see it for yourself if you have not. If you do have first hand knowledge of the practice in the US, and you are fine with it, well we are never, ever going to agree.
posted by Medieval Maven at 7:33 AM on May 24

When I emailed Matt, he patiently helped me to connect. And then gave me a free account at Metafilter. If there's a nicer, sweeter person on the internet, I don't know who it would be.

Sheldon Brown was pretty great, but Matt is a close second.
posted by fixedgear at 7:56 AM on May 24

> I wanted to respond to jfuller (with whom I agree), by arguing that there is no such thing as free speech anyway.
> Our right to express an opinion or take a position is always limited by an invisible line that balances the interests
> of the individual with those of the wider community or state.
>
> I find that statement absolutely repugnant and disgusting.
> posted by delmoi at 7:16 PM on May 23 [+] [!]
>
>
> delmoi, if you're willing, please expand
> posted by jammy at 7:27 PM on May 23 [+] [!]

Seconded. wtf, delmoi? Are we talking past each other somehow?
posted by jfuller at 8:34 AM on May 24

Anyway, there is nothing persuasive in trying to claim we must fix everything if we're going to fix one thing. It doesn't work that way in reality. Change is incremental, particularly this sort of change.

Again, that's not what I'm claiming. It's not that "we must fix everything if we're going to fix one thing", it's that our motives for choosing this as the thing to fix at this time seem highly suspect to me. Yes, change is incremental, but that doesn't mean it has to start by dumping on people at the bottom of the power balance in this country.

But I think that if you did, your crying about the low people on the, yes, organized crime because it is illegal, totem pole here in the US would be greatly decreased if you actually give a crap about the humane treatment of animals.

Well, I think your crying about chickens and dogs would be greatly decreased if you actually gave a crap about the low people on the totem pole. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. If this were really only about cruelty to animals, we'd be working to legitimize the game by legalizing it and turning it into Gamecock Boxing or the like, rather than banning it outright.

For the record, I am not "fine with" cockfighting or dog fighting. I've seen plenty of these fights, on video at least, and the way people treat the animals is often pretty damn cruel. In those cases, it clearly falls within existing animal cruelty laws, and should be punished thereby. But I don't think we need a specific ban for it, especially not a Federal felony, and I also don't think this kind of pressure-lawsuit censorship is appropriate.

I've seen how the ban has worked in New Mexico, and it seems to me that it has done very little to protect animals. Many of the birds they confiscate end up being euthanized anyway, and people will just get more roosters and keep it quieter next time. Meanwhile, it's yet another legislative excuse to wreck families, sow mistrust, and siphon money from the people to the state.
posted by vorfeed at 10:01 AM on May 24 [1 favorite]

so let me get this straight - the only way the supposed masses in this case have to make money is cock or dog fighting? I kind of doubt that. And by kind of, I mean, I really, really do doubt that. There are a lot of legitimate ways to make money that do not involve maiming or killing or ruining for any other conceivable purpose a dog or a rooster. The dog and the rooster have no choice; the humans do. Just because it's A way to make money does not mean it's the only way to make money.
posted by Medieval Maven at 10:32 AM on May 24

Our right to express an opinion or take a position is always limited by an invisible line that balances the interests of the individual with those of the wider community or state.

No. Our right to make a false assertion ("Fire!" in a crowded non-burning theater, "I am a police officer" when we are not, "jfuller is a kid-toucher" if he can prove he isn't) or a threat ("I'm going to kill the President", "you buy some fertilizer, I'll rent a truck", "let's overthrow the government") is limited. Our right to speech that constitutes theft (perfoming a copyrighted work without a license) or assault (obscenity, "fighting words") is limited. Our right to express an opinion or take a position free from censorship by the government is sacrosanct, and such a blasé suggestion otherwise is, as delmoi said, repugnant.
posted by nicwolff at 12:30 PM on May 24 [1 favorite]

OK, I see where this exchange went off the rails. Susurration's "limited by an invisible line" statement doesn't say anything, not a syllable, in support of censorship of opinions by the government. That detail was supplied by the eye of the beholder.

Y'all might get a clue when Suss says "Where that line should be drawn depends on your individual worldview. Where it is drawn at any time comes and goes a little." It's simply not possible to express an opinion publicly without risking pushback. You say "Queers, I can't stand 'em" and your girlfriend, who has a gay sister, goes ew and drops you. You've been subjected to pressure, directly due to your expression an opinion. Well, yawn. Not only do I not have any problem with individual or social pushback, I can't imagine a world in which it doesn't exist--except a world in which we're all identical robots programmed with identical opinions. But a world in which your expression of your opinions or beliefs can earn you pushback--maybe a lot more than you were ready to deal with--is a world in which expression has a cost. Which is to say, by definition, not free.
posted by jfuller at 3:14 PM on May 24

"The Humane Society of the United States Focus on the Family is taking legal action against Amazon.com, as the main distribution hub for animal fighting pro-gay "fisting" magazines, paraphernalia, and DVDs. Amazon even has a community for cockfightingloving. Amazon claim that the legal action contravenes their First Amendment rights and have vowed to continue selling cockfightingloving materials. You can tell Jeff Bezos what you think of this (via the HSUS website)."

Censorship is great, until it's your ox cock being gored.
posted by orthogonality at 3:35 PM on May 24

OMG. Google has a whole page about cockfighting. You know, if you search for cockfighting.
posted by tmcw at 4:05 PM on May 24

I thought that I should come in to explain my statement. I don't support censorship of opinions by the Government. But I was observing that we have no right to completely free speech. The US constitution guarantees free speech, but that guarantee is limited by other considerations of public good: national security, or the perceived threat to individuals or groups. The Supreme Court ruled that a state may prohibit advocacy in cases where that advocacy is intended to produce "imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." So I am not permitted to make speeches telling everyone to kill Muslims, gays, whoever, because that constitutes incitement to break another law.
My statement was more an observation that we are never entirely free to say or write what we want -- and that the limits that are put on what we can say have been shifting around quite a lot, particularly recently, when the constraints of law have been extended to cover advocacy of any illegal act. This makes me uncomfortable, because what is "illegal" is largely a matter of which side of the privilege and class fence you sit (i.e. whether you belong to the group that formulates the law).
So to return to jfuller's point, I agree that it should not be the role of Government to impose censorship. Even though I would like to see people who advocate the torture of animals eviscerated, I must content myself with hoping that there is a special circle of Hell reserved for them and support social pressure rather than legislation. I love the idea of grannies mobbing Jeff Bezos ... I can just visualize a sea of waving handbags and umbrellas ... :-)
Oh yes - my comment about Amazon's "community" was based on Amazon's terminology. They identify this collection of items and members as a community, not I.
posted by Susurration at 4:39 PM on May 24 [1 favorite]

The Supreme Court ruled that a state may prohibit advocacy in cases where that advocacy is intended to produce "imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

This doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Also, you left out the "likely to produce," and aren't paying attention to the "imminent."

You are, in fact, permitted to make speeches telling everyone to kill Muslims, gays, whoever...
except
when you're leading an angry mob that is likely to actually kill a Muslim or gay or whatever, right then and there.

Absent the real danger of immediate harm to specific, real, identifiable people, you can say whatever hateful nonsense you want.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:59 PM on May 24

the constraints of law have been extended to cover advocacy of any illegal act

What are you talking about? This isn't true at all.

jfuller is clearly wrong when he claims that you're not talking about government censorship but about social pressure, and you're clearly wrong when you talk about government censorship - did you read the page you linked to? Brandenberg v. Ohio and Hess v. Indiana both threw out the convictions of appellants who had been convicted of advocacy of violent crimes, precisely affirming our 1st Amendment right to advocate illegal acts as long as we didn't advocate them as a direct instruction to the people listening to go now and do them.

We really do have a right to completely free speech when we are expressing our opinions or our political positions. That any American doesn't know that is what is so disheartening.
posted by nicwolff at 7:52 PM on May 24

I wanted to respond to jfuller (with whom I agree), by arguing that there is no such thing as free speech anyway. Our right to express an opinion or take a position is always limited by an invisible line that balances the interests of the individual with those of the wider community or state.

I find that statement absolutely repugnant and disgusting.
posted by delmoi at 5:16 PM on May 23 [1 favorite +] [!]

Stanley Fish responds.
posted by mecran01 at 11:12 PM on May 24

the constraints of law have been extended to cover advocacy of any illegal act
What are you talking about? This isn't true at all. [Nicwolff]
I was talking about the erosion of the original Supreme court position of constraints on free speech (e.g. Brandenberg v. Ohio and Hess v. Indiana) with reference to issues such as Copyright, Expressive Writing in school, and the FBI's right to track what you have been reading.
As I said, the line between individual freedom of expression and the interests of the state or other groups has been moving around a lot recently. The Patriot Act permits Government agents to track your private reading, research, and communications, for use in building a case that is based on your inferred opinions.

We really do have a right to completely free speech when we are expressing our opinions or our political positions.

That was not at all what I was discussing. It is illegal to incite people to perform an illegal act. It is totally legal to express an opinion that it should be permitted - there is a difference. My point is that the right to free speech is never absolute, but interpreted according to perceived threats to society. At a time when people are arrested for wearing a controversial T-shirt, freedom of expression cannot always be taken for granted (I am not arguing that this should be so, but observing that it is so). I know that these cases are individually going through the courts and that (hopefully) they will not be upheld.
But freedom of expression is always balanced against the perceived risks of free speech -- and those limitations change as society's perceptions of risk change. If they did not, we would not have the Patriot Act.
posted by Susurration at 11:31 AM on May 25

Not what you were discussing?! You wrote: "Our right to express an opinion or take a position is always limited by an invisible line that balances the interests of the individual with those of the wider community or state." That's the statement that delmoi and I were reacting to. If you don't want to discuss that any more, fine, but jeez.

And "the constraints of law have been extended to cover advocacy of any illegal act" is a long and hysterical way from "the line between individual freedom of expression and the interests of the state or other groups has been moving around a lot recently", isn't it? In that copyright case, the district court slapped down Diebold's idiotic claim, affirming - not eroding! - the student's free-speech rights - again, are you reading the stuff you're linking to?

I don't like the PATRIOT Act much more than you do or the EFF does, and I wouldn't for one second put it past the Bush administration to use it to surveil their political adversaries, but what shred of evidence do you have that anyone's going to be convicted - or even indicted - for their opinions, stated or implied?
posted by nicwolff at 11:37 PM on May 25