Slashdot Mirror
PETA Wants To Sue Anonymous HuffPo Commenters
MarkWhittington writes, quoting himself: "PETA is incensed over an article in the Huffington Post that details that organization's unsettling practice of euthanizing animals in a Virginia facility that many have assumed is a no kill shelter. According to the New York Post, PETA wants to sue some of the people who have left comments on the article. The problem is that, following the practice of many on the Internet, many of the comments are under assumed names or are anonymous. PETA is attempting to discover the true identities of their critics so that it can sue them for defamation."
Now, PETA, sue me over my opinion.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
PETA pushes the article's circulation into the stratosphere, via the Streisand effect, effectively shooting themselves in the foot. Congrats, idiots.
Only on
Yes, PETA - Recycle your pets.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
euthanizing an animal is good
euthanizing an animal and using its protein is evil
now excuse me while I use the protein of a lovely and beautiful and once-free-and-frolicking sea kitten
If we weren't supposed to eat animals, they wouldn't be made out of meat.
To be fair to PETA, at least one example from TFA is absolutely false:
it objects to terms like "animal Kervorkians,"
It is completely false and unfair to compare PETA to Dr. Kevorkian. Dr. Kervokian only killed people who volunteered to die. PETA, on the other hand, is killing animals who have not volunteered to die. PETA is an organization animal murderers (the meat goes to waste, therefore it is murder and not food) while Dr. Kevorkian assisted patients in committing suicide. Big difference.
PETA is attempting to discover the true identities of the supressive persons so that it can sue them for defamation.
FTFY. Like Scientologists, these people and free speech don't get along.
For a minute, I thought PETA was poking the hacker group Anonymous with a stick. Now THAT would be an interesting battle... I'm a little disappointed.
PETA, through its kill shelters, is responsible for killing more pet animals than any other entity on earth. Their political stance is about gathering money, and nothing else.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
in its shelters. "In 2011, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) behaved in a regrettably consistent manner: it euthanized the overwhelming majority of dogs and cats that it accepted into its shelters. Out of 760 dogs impounded, they killed 713, arranged for 19 to be adopted, and farmed out 36 to other shelters (not necessarily "no kill" ones). As for cats, they impounded 1,211, euthanized 1,198, transferred eight, and found homes for a grand total of five. PETA also took in 58 other companion animals -- including rabbits. It killed 54 of them."
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/petas-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-history-of-killing-animals/254130/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Unfortunately, my local recycling center only takes animals labeled PETA 2, 3, and 5 (your general small furries). PETA 1 (reptilian) and PETA 6 (aquatic) need to be hauled all the way to the next county, so nobody really bothers. And god forbid you have a wolf or black bear to dispose of - NOBODY takes PETA 7.
If they really want us to recycle, they'll make this damned system easier...
They're rather worse than Greenpeace, IMHO. Greenpeace doesn't give money to arsonists or kill thousands of pets.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
is this accurate? im really confused.
I think you may be mistaking what are actually contrasting and often contradictory statements of discrete individuals across several communities for a monolithic statement of belief by a single collective mind.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I think we need to hold a fundraiser so we can finally take these awesome PETA fanatics and give them what they've always wanted; a life in and around happy, free animals...lions specifically. A big field full of lions. Lions are also known for their ethical treatment of other animals.
You're a bunch of liars, hypocrites, and assholes. And do feel free to give it a shot, we have excellent anti-SLAPP provisions in my state.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Think of PETA as the environmentalist equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church, and suddenly it all makes sense.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Let me preface this comment by stating that, as an animal advocate, I am not in ideological alignment with PETA and I do not generally support this organization. That said, Nathan Winograd's HuffPo article amounts to little more than malicious hearsay and it is incredibly biased, leaving out critical information in favor of whipping lazy readers into a furor. PETA does not euthanize adoptable animals. PETA has an open-door program in place to accept and euthanize sick and injured animals which cannot be accepted into other animal shelters, in order to prevent them from being abandoned otherwise. Limited resources necessarily force animal shelters to pick and choose which animals they will accept and when they will accept them -- leaving some unwanted animals with no other place to go but the roadside or the dumpster. People who don't want their pet, or can't afford to treat the pet's illness or injury, will abandon them. It's horrible, but it happens all the time. If there isn't a place, especially in a large and poorer urban area, that will accept any animal at any time regardless of condition, people abandon them. It's that simple. As someone who has lived in rural areas for more than fifteen years, I've seen the little-discussed end result of the failed "no-kill" mission and limited-admission shelters -- a constant stream of aggressive, injured, and sick pets dumped on country roads because the local shelter turned them away. As far as I can tell, PETA has not attempted to deceive the public about their program or its purpose -- in fact, PETA maintains a website about the program called "Why PETA Euthanizes." PETA appears to be quite public about this program and why they believe it is necessary. Furthermore, Winograd is believed to be responsible for posting anonymous comments on articles by or about him to make it seem as though he has reinforcements. Truth is an absolute defense to slander/libel claims, but PETA absolutely has the right to sue for defamation if the comments are untrue. Further reading: http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/ http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/animal-rights/rebuttal-huffington-posts-nathan-j-winograd http://www.houstonpress.com/2009-01-29/news/barc-sucks/6/
The WBC is toothless in carrying out its agenda, though. PETA essentially believes in exterminating all domestic pets; that humanity has sinned by breeding them in the first place—and it does quite a lot to seek out that goal, often in an extremely and unnecessarily inhumane manner, as you might expect of the kind of people who maintain such a hostile, perverse thesis.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
It's actually a lot worse, and I say this as someone with no love for gun rights. You'll need a strong stomach for the reason why, though. (I mean it.)
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Pets Emulsified and Toasted as Appetizer?
You'd better be prepared for a lawsuit from PETA, Samantha Wright.
Also the original geenpeace was founded by scientists who wanted to apply scientific principles to environmental policy, many of it's founders left when the hollow men took over and started running anti-science campaigns against (say) chlorhinated water in the early 90's. The WWF is still a very respectable bunch of tree huggers, David Attenbourough recently credited them with "saving the Galapogous islands".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Local shelters kills more even the private held one.
But the difference lies in adoption rate. PETA kills 95+% of what it get given not really bothering giving animals as pet, after all "pets"! are in genral against their policy. Shelter private or public depending on the animal get 40 to 60% back to adoption.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
No doubt so shall we all.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
It's no strawman—it sounds ghoulish, but it's most definitely reality, unlike their official statements. There have been several cases of PETA workers coming forward and stating that animals are killed improperly by the organization. I don't really want to spam the same link over and over (I've already posted a really disturbing photodocumentary in another comment here), but if you do a bit more research than the official statement you'll find that it's a lot of whitewashing.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Then you're not really paying attention.
While the NRA wants to be pretty much free from the dictated rules of others, PETA wants to be the one dictating.
NRA: Leave us alone, we're doing our thing.
PETA: Stop what you're doing or we'll harass you.
See the difference?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
PETA should be allowed to discover the identities of the posters for the purposes of suing them, if the statements are in fact defamatory. But the first bar PETA should have to clear is to demonstrate to the court that the statements are in fact defamatory. And they should be required to identify the allegedly-defamatory posts publicly, so the posters can retain counsel and contest the allegations without having their identity revealed. Only after they've prevailed on the "the statements are defamatory" part should they be allowed discovery as to the identities of the posters. And if they fail to follow through and file suit, sanctions should be imposed for abuse of process.
Being anonymous should not mean you can't be held accountable for what you say, but the first step should be showing that someone could be held legally accountable for saying what was said. If what was said isn't actionable, then it shouldn't matter who said it.
PETA's position is that we ought not kill any animals any where. But they kill 95% of the pets entrusted to their care.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
No, It's People Eating Tasty Animals!
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
due to the typically brutal lives that wild pets usually endure fighting disease and competing for territory and food
Otherwise known as "nature"...
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Pets Euthanized and Touted as Adopted
That's the issue, there are more pets than people can properly care for due to the economy, as well as extra animals from neglectful owners that abuse or don't "fix" their pets and let them run the streets.
There isn't enough money to care for strays, or people willing to take them. So eventually the shelters have to put the animals down. Sounds like PETA didn't like that basic fact being published... But it's still a fact that they CANNOT save all the animals they rescue, its not their fault. But they created this "bleeding heart movement" that's going to backlash on them.
I used to donate to the WWF, until I watched one of their TV shows where they were fighting over the money in some kind of big metal cage instead of using it to save pandas.
PETA is and always has been such a joke.
PETA is an organization that pretends to love animals.
What PETA really is is an organization that hates people. Their fundamental position is that basically, no animal would ever voluntarily want to even be on the same planet as the evil horrible creatures known as "humans", that simple proximity to humans is intensely stressful to them, and that all humans are good for is to exploit, torment, and kill animals.
Their ignorance of what the animals themselves actually want and need is outright appalling. When they go full-on "rescue", the poor animals might as well be in an abattoir. They turn the phrase "killing with Kindness" quite literal. In fact, abattoirs have are often more humane. At least abattoirs are set up for relatively quick and painless death as opposed to panicked animals being smeared all over the highways and general mayhem.
I strongly believe in respect for animals. But to truly show respect, you need to gain understanding, not arrogantly assume you know best.
This is a YRO story. Can the courts compel HuffPo to turn over the identities of the users? Under what circumstances? If the courts have the legal power to do this, SHOULD they have this power?
I tend to err strongly on the side of free speech. I don't like the idea of courts having this power, because the circumstances under which they could compel disclosure of identities are always subject to change. Today it might be defamation, tomorrow it might be legitimate criticism of the government.
Leaving aside the question of existing law, I would argue that rantings of an AC on an internet forum can't meet a standard of causing "harm" to a person or organization. Regardless of how libelous or scandalous the comment, an AC has zero credibility unless they are able to provide facts which can then be independently verified. If the facts harm the reputation of a person or group, then truth should be an absolute defense (although in many countries that's not the case). Otherwise, any anonymous and unsubstantiated accusations should be dismissed out of hand and deemed 'harmless'.