Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

PETA Wants To Sue Anonymous HuffPo Commenters

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the turns-out-they-were-dogs dept.

Privacy 590

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oh brother (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837341)

PETA is and always has been such a joke just like Greenpeace. And first post.

Re:Oh brother (4, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837385)

Yes, PETA - Recycle your pets.

Re:Oh brother (5, Funny)

immaterial (1520413) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837523)

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...

Wait until PETA merges with Scientology (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837761)

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

Just wait... any time now PETA gonna merge with Scientology and you gotta take ***ALL*** pets or they will sue you and your great great granduncle for your very last penny

Re:Oh brother (1, Offtopic)

davester666 (731373) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837665)

Tasty meat paste! Or is it real Pâté? Maybe this is REALLY where 'Peta' came from!

Re:Oh brother (3, Funny)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837707)

Pets Emulsified and Toasted as Appetizer?

Re:Oh brother (4, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837485)

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.

Re:Oh brother (4, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837621)

Think of PETA as the environmentalist equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church, and suddenly it all makes sense.

Re:Oh brother (4, Insightful)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837683)

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.

Re:Oh brother (3, Funny)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837751)

You'd better be prepared for a lawsuit from PETA, Samantha Wright.

Re:Oh brother (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837513)

And first post.

Achievement unlocked.

Re:Oh brother (5, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837545)

They're rather worse than Greenpeace, IMHO. Greenpeace doesn't give money to arsonists or kill thousands of pets.

-jcr

Re:Oh brother (4, Interesting)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837783)

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".

Re:Oh brother (-1, Flamebait)

Michael O-P (31524) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837601)

I always think of PETA as having the same extreme mindset as the NRA.

Re:Oh brother (1)

chipschap (1444407) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837663)

People Eating Tasty Animals

Re:Oh brother (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837755)

I don't think the NRA kills as many animals or objectifies women as much.

Re:Oh brother (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837691)

PETA is far worse than Greenpeace. Greenpeace is just nutty. PETA is outright evil with their "a dead animal is a non-suffering animal" shelter policies.

A name for PETA (4, Funny)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837351)

Bully

Now, PETA, sue me over my opinion.

Re:A name for PETA (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837381)

It's only defamation if it's false. How do you sue people for telling the truth?

Re:A name for PETA (5, Insightful)

tysonedwards (969693) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837425)

The truth is in the eye of a Judge whom is best swayed by a well-crafted legal strategy.

Re:A name for PETA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837449)

Why did anyone assume it was a no kill facility? If a dog catcher catches someone's dog who is supposed to be being watched by someone, possibly neighbors or a pet-sitter while they are away on vacation or business and came back to find their dog had been euthanized, One could imagine they would be extremely pissed.

Re:A name for PETA (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837729)

Peeing Eternally Through Air

(translation for dodo-heads: pissin' into the wind)

And with this move... (5, Insightful)

Guinness Beaumont (2901413) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837357)

PETA pushes the article's circulation into the stratosphere, via the Streisand effect, effectively shooting themselves in the foot. Congrats, idiots.

Alright then. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837377)

That's it, please turn yourself in. You horrid criminal you!

Re:And with this move... (1)

mtb_ogre (698802) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837387)

Hopefully they make lots of noise and spend a lot of money taking HuffPo to court, PETA has become a caricature of itself. I can't believe they are still around.

Re:And with this move... (5, Insightful)

Bieeanda (961632) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837417)

Nah, this is intentional. PETA PR technique has been 100% strident and ridiculous for many years, because they long ago figured out that it gets them coverage.

Re:And with this move... (4, Insightful)

spongman (182339) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837451)

I would probably never have known anything about this if it weren't for this. I will never donate to PETA again. Streisand indeed.

Re:And with this move... (3, Insightful)

cheater512 (783349) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837597)

You donated to PETA before this?

Going out on a limb here .. (2)

twistofsin (718250) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837453)

But I think PETA subscribes to the "all press is good press" school of thought.

Re:And with this move... (-1, Troll)

westlake (615356) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837475)

PETA pushes the article's circulation into the stratosphere, via the Streisand effect...

The geek overstates the significance of the "Streisand effect."

The audience for news on the web is fragmented along ideological and many other lines and served by countless websites and blogs, each competing for the attention of some tiny fraction of the whole.

The story that captures the attention of Slashdot may not rate so much as a single line elsewhere,

Re:And with this move... (2)

Guinness Beaumont (2901413) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837501)

Counterpoint: This all started on a non-geek centered publication. So, by default, it's received far more than a single line elsewhere.

Re:And with this move... (1)

davmoo (63521) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837585)

According to Alexa, Huffington Post is ranked 21st in the US for visitors and page views. And the Washington Post, where the story of PETA's lawsuit adventures originated, is ranked 86th. I think there's a bit more Streisand Effect with this than you think.

Re:And with this move... (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837589)

The geek overstates the significance of the "Streisand effect." ... The story that captures the attention of Slashdot may not rate so much as a single line elsewhere

Yes, and for an example of this, mention "Streisand effect" to someone that doesn't read Slashdot, and they will probably have no idea what you are talking about.

Re:And with this move... (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837785)

So if you personally don't know something exists, it doesn't?

Re:And with this move... (1)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837499)

Frankly it appears that PETA has found an exemption to the Streisand effect.

Re:And with this move... (1)

jcr (53032) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837557)

Yeah, nut-cults aren't really known for acting in their own best interests.

-jcr

PETA rapes animals (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837363)

This AC pretends /. won't fold to a lawsuit.

They could put those animals to use, (0)

pecosdave (536896) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837367)

throw some kitties in the crock pot, put a beagle on a bagel, and another barker on the barbie....

It's called recycling, duh....

Re:They could put those animals to use, (1)

pecosdave (536896) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837723)

Redundant? Excuse me! I beat the second recycling post by four minutes!

This is good news (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837371)

Instead of spending their ill-gotten money on killing animals they will be wasting it in the courts, which is arguably a better cause.

hypocrisy (3, Insightful)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837397)

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

Re:hypocrisy (1)

davmoo (63521) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837409)

If God didn't want us to eat animals, He shouldn't have made them out of meat.

If PETA leadership would spend as much time learning basic animal science as they spend on stupidity and lawsuits, Maybe they wouldn't be such a bad organization.

Re:hypocrisy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837437)

While I am quite fine with eating animals, you don't really make a good case for not eating humans.

Re:hypocrisy (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837631)

Human meat is nutritious - much like pork, though it can be gamey if the animal is too old. Human kid meat is served in various locations today including Northern China, North Korea, Pakistan and some parts of India - though it is always labelled "special pork" or some such. Historically humans butchered for meat were called "long pig".

I wish it weren't so, but it is so. We are not so far from "soylent green" as you might think.

Re:hypocrisy (2)

smellotron (1039250) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837477)

If God didn't want us to eat animals, He shouldn't have made them out of meat.

You know, most of PETA's members are made out of meat, too...

Re:hypocrisy (2)

davmoo (63521) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837599)

I hear they taste like chicken.

Re:hypocrisy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837701)

I hear they taste like chicken.

That's normal people.

After years of eating PETAs crap, PETA-members have acquired a different taste.

Re:hypocrisy (2, Informative)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837533)

All animals are made of food. Many forms of plant and fungus are edible but others have evolved to be poisonous to animals - including humans. But if it moves, it's edible. Not only that, but mobile animals are nutrient concentrates that provide more energy per pound than any sort of plant.

Re:hypocrisy (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837411)

Ahhh, sea kittens.. I just had a bowl of these myself.

How is this relevant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837399)

News for Nerds?

Re:How is this relevant? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837429)

As an anonymous coward, I, for one, find this article extremely relevant.

People Eating Tasty Animals (4, Funny)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837413)

If we weren't supposed to eat animals, they wouldn't be made out of meat.

Re:People Eating Tasty Animals (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837511)

How can you have any pudding, if you don't eat your meat?

Re:People Eating Tasty Animals (1)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837645)

If we weren't supposed to eat animals they wouldn't be made of food.

Re:People Eating Tasty Animals (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837719)

Humans are made of meat too.

Re:People Eating Tasty Animals (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837777)

Also known as 'long pig'.

Re:People Eating Tasty Animals (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837737)

I feel bad but really, it's their fault for tasting so good......

Penn and Teller already covered this... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837423)

Bullshit, season 2 episode 1

Re:Penn and Teller already covered this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837547)

Re:Penn and Teller already covered this... (2)

mattb47 (85083) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837609)

Best episode of the entire series!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ijLulwUTY [youtube.com]

PETA basically comes off as a semi-terrorist organization. Which it is...

Comments were indeed lies (4, Insightful)

NoKaOi (1415755) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837433)

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.

People Expecting Target Angst (1)

noshellswill (598066) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837435)

When shooting searats (otters) is more than just fun ....

I'm not surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837441)

Most people are way too stupid to own anything that is alive other than a houseplant. Seriously. After reading some of the posts here I have come to the conclusion that it is probably in the best interests of the animals to be put down rather than suffer at the hands of morons.

Let's tell it like it is (4, Insightful)

Torodung (31985) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837445)

PETA is attempting to discover the true identities of the supressive persons [wikipedia.org] so that it can sue them for defamation.

FTFY. Like Scientologists, these people and free speech don't get along.

Freedom of the press (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837457)

But only if you say what we want to hear. Sounds like the rantings of a typical political group ( they may have been about the animals in the past, but these days they are no different than any other special interest political group.

vs the James Rosen / Stephen Kim story (0, Offtopic)

decora (1710862) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837461)

Wow I'm confused. Here is what I get reading the comment boards lately on huffpo, slashdot, etc

1. Bradley Maning = brave whistleblower who has free speech protection
2. James Rosen = awful Fox News reporter, part of the right wing conspiracy, who gave out classified information
3. Anonymous Comenters = brave whistleblowers who have free speech protection

is this accurate? im really confused.

Re:vs the James Rosen / Stephen Kim story (5, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837559)

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.

Re:vs the James Rosen / Stephen Kim story (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837583)

Wow I'm confused. Here is what I get reading the comment boards lately on huffpo, slashdot, etc

1. Bradley Maning = brave whistleblower who has free speech protection
2. James Rosen = awful Fox News reporter, part of the right wing conspiracy, who gave out classified information
3. Anonymous Comenters = brave whistleblowers who have free speech protection

is this accurate? im really confused.

It is not accurate. The U.S. Justice Department has crossed a very dangerous line in trying to criminally prosecute James Rosen.

Re:vs the James Rosen / Stephen Kim story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837605)

Ok, honestly, being part of fox news should be punishable by death, but I would still give him full free speech protection.

Oh, and even more honest, I don't know if you remember correctly how many people saw Maning as a nut who gave out classified information which could or would lead to the deaths of nearly everybody in every warzone the US is in. Even after the army themselves said, this probably won't get anybody killed.

Re:vs the James Rosen / Stephen Kim story (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837633)

I doubt you even read /. Its about half and half for lynching Bradly Manning. I have no idea who James Rosen is or heard of him on here. And I think the anonymous commentators will get no comments cause everyone will be bashing PETA or making stupid PETA jokes. In conclusion, PETA is a bat shit crazy organization that I hope no sane person supports them.

OH ic, anonymous adjective, not noun _Anonymous_ (3, Funny)

exabrial (818005) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837463)

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.

Yer PETA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837471)

Good Luck.

Another clear case of Management over reacting to the internet and the demons of internet expression.

Proud to be a member of the *REAL* PETA (1)

storkus (179708) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837481)

People for the Eating of Tasty Animals--BEHOLD!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dullhunk/358317592 [flickr.com]

and

http://www.amatteroftasteinc.com/peta.html [amatteroftasteinc.com]

Claimer: I proudly own these "Mashed Potatoes" and "Vegetarian" shirts and people take pictures of us all the time--99%+ of people love them and they're the BEST ice-breakers! (No joke)

We already knew PETA kills animals (1)

Moppusan (2837753) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837487)

The truth shall set you free. Anonymously. Freely anonymous. PETA kills animals. PETA is run by hypocrites. PETA should be banned from existing.

So sue Penn & Teller (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837489)

They did an episode of Bullshit on this very topic.

PETA is good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837493)

Don't get rid of PETA! They're actually a good organization! They run around NAKED!

Re:PETA is good! (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837567)

Yeah they still have that 'Sexiest Vegan Next Door" competition.

But I draw the line on their faux foods section. Vegan quesadilla?? Hello, you're missing the point - by definition it's a tortilla with CHEESE.

Talk about hypocrisy, PETA kills most animals.. (5, Informative)

stox (131684) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837497)

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/ [theatlantic.com]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html [huffingtonpost.com]

Re:Talk about hypocrisy, PETA kills most animals.. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837641)

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/ [theatlantic.com]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html [huffingtonpost.com]

I fail to see any regret in their actions of 2011, since they continued in 2012: http://www.vi.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi?link_select=facility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2012

Who is supporting these bozos. (2)

Karmashock (2415832) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837535)

I can only imagine its some out of touch half drunk twits that sign checks at cocktail parties so attractive but vapid people can pretend to like them.

Who is honestly proud of anything PETA has done? They have no impact on the society. So at best they're failures. At worst... Oh god, does it get bad.

They were sort of funny when they threw red ink on socialites wearing fur coats but then they went after people's pets and BACON!... there's no coming back from that.

Re:Who is supporting these bozos. (1)

jcr (53032) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837613)

Who is honestly proud of anything PETA has done?

I'm not sure if "proud" is the right word, but that crazy twat Ingrid Newkirk seems awfully fucking smug about it.

-jcr

Re:Who is supporting these bozos. (2)

Karmashock (2415832) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837757)

So what?... What has she accomplished lately?

These organizations likely did accomplish something in their early history. But what does an activist group do when its won? Does it disband and go back to their day jobs? No. They just move their platform to the next radical step... something far enough out that no one will ever accept it... and in taking that insane position they ensure that they'll always have something to complain about.

its like if you started an organization to outlaw child porn or something and once that was accomplished you moved to regular pornography and then to just any lewd behavior in media and then went so far as to try and outlaw holding hands or any public display of affection.

That's pretty much exactly what happened to Greenpeace. Everything Greenpeace asked for when it was founded has been granted. They won. Everyone ultimately agreed with them. Little things like "lets not put poison in the river" or "hey, how about we filter those smoke stacks"... Well, mission accomplished. Then Greenpeace basically started asking for the total abolition of the modern world... and of course that isn't going to happen. So Greenpeace has something to gripe about. But its that creep towards the radical fridge as they get what they want.

PETA is likely similar. We treat farm animals better then we used to treat them. Animals certainly do have more rights then they did before. Not many of course. But there's been some movement on the subject. Anything reasonable is debatable. But we're not going to stop experimenting on animals in medical studies. That sort of science saves lives. Your life. Your children's lives. Someone gets in the way of that and you shove them out of the way without a word and carry on. No argument. Same thing for food. We're not all shifting over to Tofu. The Vegis and Vegans might as well get over it.

PETA is a bully (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837543)

PETA has long been a bully. Many years ago, probably 15 years ago or so, they bullied a guy with the peta.org or peta.net domain name into handing it over to them. The guy had a joke site called People Eating Tasty Animals, and PETA's lawyers pounced on him. I support animals and animal rights, but I'd never support a corrupt and misguided organization like PETA.

Factual defense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837593)

There's such a thing as factual defense, and assholes at PETA have been reporting their head count every year to the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Re:Factual defense (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837771)

Truth is a defense against libel, not necessarily defamation, particularly if there is reasonable cause to suspect that the defamation is done maliciously, and not simply an unavoidable consequence of honest reporting. HuffPo has a legitimate defense. The posters who resorted to name calling only have the defense of anonymity, which might be sufficient, but doesn't necessarily make it right.

fundraiser (3, Funny)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837595)

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.

Good ole slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837611)

Can only point to some blog which mentions the real article. Can't point to the original article at http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/claws_come_kills_shelter_peta_goes_rkK9NKluuT53huumRp4L5K

Personally, unless an actual court case is filed, consider it hot air. That seems to be the peta thing anymore.

Dear PETA... (3, Informative)

laughingcoyote (762272) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837619)

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.

PETA is awful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837643)

For what it's worth, I'm vegan. I have my reasons, and I don't push them on anybody else. People often try to question me about it, and I do my damnedest to change the subject the same way I do when people try to talk religion with me. I would've gone vegan a few years earlier than I did if it weren't for PETA. they had made me assume that all vegans were complete asses, and that if I went vegan everybody would assume I was too.
I can't think of anybody doing more harm to their own "cause" than PETA. Everything they do is counter-productive. If the meat industry wanted to undermine vegetarianism and veganism, they could do nothing better than to quietly take over PETA and keep running it exactly the same way that it's being run now.
I sincerely wish they would just go away.

Check the Source, Luke (1)

Ragica (552891) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837659)

Lets see... New York *Post* (tabloid, basically) is the source of the info. Actual article linked is on the Yahoo "Contributer Network" (content farm). But PETA, favorite slashdot whipping boy, is in the headline; with vague indication of freedom-of-speech issues. Yep, this is going to be big on Slashdot, better promote it immediately.

Queue the endless stream of weirdly rabid PETA hate... 3... 2... 1... go.

I know RTFA is not to be encouraged, but y'all might want to head over the the Post article in this case. It has a picture of half-nude PETA protesters, for no good reason, that you'll probably enjoy laughing at featured at the top of the pathetic and insubstantial little article. After that you might enjoy the current top story on there when I loaded the main page: about local bike shops being run out of business by rich corporate bike-share programs in New York. Serious stuff!

Re:Check the Source, Luke (1)

aussersterne (212916) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837759)

Anyone that has had extensive contact with PeTA or PeTA higher-ups (and in some cases, even on-the-ground activists) without having been a kool-aid drinking member can tell you that there's nothing "weird" about the rabies. There is, however, something beyond "weird" about PeTA.

I've posted about this in the past; it's in my comment history.

I'm no fan of PETA, but... (4, Informative)

Loba Art (2933853) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837661)

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/ [whypetaeuthanizes.com] http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/animal-rights/rebuttal-huffington-posts-nathan-j-winograd [opposingviews.com] http://www.houstonpress.com/2009-01-29/news/barc-sucks/6/ [houstonpress.com]

Re:I'm no fan of PETA, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837745)

So they just happen to ONLY take in un-adoptable animals? this has been their standard operation for years. they kill a much higher % on average than most local animal control dept.

their second in command uses pig derived insulin to live...

hypocrites. shit stained hypocrites.

Re:I'm no fan of PETA, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837767)

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.

Pictures of dead animals that PETA killed in an environment where people were under the understanding they would not be... WTF is there to defend? Seriously? You are trying to defend a general concept when whether killing kittens is right or wrong is totally fucking orthogonal to the whole goddamn point of TFA.

is an absolute defense to slander/libel claims, but PETA absolutely has the right to sue for defamation if the comments are untrue.

The hell it does. You don't get to be a loud belligerent well known organization and also get to sue people for posting comments on the Internet anymore than Obama gets to sue for the amusing crap people routinely post about him.

The burden in these cases is much higher than "untrue" comments simply leveraging the legal system when you have no case to try and silence your opponents does not work in the information age. There are apparently some people who still have not received this memo.

PETA kills puppies and kittens for fun!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837675)

It turns out shortly after PETA started torturing and then killing baby kittens with rusty razors for sport god started feeling rather bad about the whole masturbation rule and now leaves kitten killing to the experts at PETA.

Next thing ... (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837695)

... PETA is going to try and stop me from spanking my monkey or choking my chicken.

Two Things (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837697)

1. The (lack of) reputation PETA has is nothing to get upset over.
2. It's only defamation if they're lying.

Every Time I Read Or Hear... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837773)

...The acronym "PETA", I club a cute little kitten to death with a baby seal.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?