People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is famous for its public displays designed to shock and sometimes disgust people (here and here and here). However, PETA appears a bit thin skinned this week with legal attacks on critics who accused the organization of killing animals in a Virginia shelter. PETA reportedly is asking a court to give it the personal information, email addresses, phone numbers, and other data for three bloggers who reacted to an April 2 posting by a no-kill shelter advocate. One of the bloggers called PETA “animal Kevorkians.”
PETA has refused to discuss its efforts.
Articles have accused PETA of killing roughly 90 percent of stray dogs and cats at a Virginia facility. Critics insist PETA is not open or honest on its kill policy with donors.
I have been unable to see any of the alleged PETA filings or any response from the organization on these allegations. I find it troubling to see public interest organizations going after critics. PETA thrives on free speech and often engages in speech that many find troubling. Yet, we all defend their right to do so even if we criticize their tactics. I would be interested in seeing the filings if they are public and anyone has run across them.
Source: NY Post
So there, jetson409 – I suppose now I have left myself open to more legal actions since I have “recanted” on my imaginary “recant”? Right?
Run – go tell PeTA.
I did not do any such thing. I recant nothing I have said in regards to PeTA.
My thoughts are not only reasonable they are also highly likely and commonplace. It saves everyone thousands and so they do it.
And if martians came down and kidnapped Ms. Newkirk and forced her to withdraw PeTA’s legal action against the Huffington Post – that is also “possible”, right?
At least make an attempt to deal in facts and logic, and not speculation, okay jetson409?
I am not claiming anything. I raised a question with a possible scenario explaining why a lawsuit may not have been necessary. If some or all of your statements were found to be defamatory or questionable and you recanted in writing ( a written statement for example made through the attorneys outside the courts) your comments would have been removed by Huff and a lawsuit would be avoided.
Regarding the lawsuit that PeTA filed against the Huffington Post. They (PeTA) had the audacity to accuse me of “defaming” them and they EDITED the comments they claimed were defamatory.
That is why I screen capped them all exactly as they were posted over at the Huffington Post.
In one comment, PeTA’s crack legal team managed to change the word, “LEGALLY” to “ILLEGALLY”. Therefore, they could pretend that I accused them of doing something illegal (I would guess).
If that doesn’t smack of desperation, I really don’t know what does. Clearly, they knew they couldn’t win a defamation case using altered and edited comments – so what exactly was their intent?
One has to assume their intent was to intimidate me and the other commenters. Again, who is the bully? ME? I only WISH I had PeTA’s money so that I could actually SAVE some animals with it.
In fact, if PeTA would actually SAVE some animals instead of killing the ones they get their hands on – then we wouldn’t even be having this conversation in the first place, would we?
I willingly agreed to recant? Oh this is getting better by the minute. LOL
To what have I “recanted”? Please do tell us, jetson409.
Everything I have said in regards to PeTA has been truthful and based upon the documents that PeTA themselves have filed with the State of Virgina and the State of Virginia’s Shelter Report filed by Dr. Kovich, DVM in 2010.
The comments in question all remained as of last June over at the Huffington Post(when I painstakingly catalogued and screen capped each and every one).
Not a one was “recanted” or “removed” by me. Since then, I wouldn’t know what has happened to them.
But don’t make claims that aren’t based in fact, jetson409. I have recanted nothing I have said regarding PeTA.
Really Enjoying This:
I’ve handled internet defamation litigation before; I know how it works. PETA’s petition got nowhere for good reason. And do you not sense the least bit of irony in anonymously ranting about anonymous rants?
As I understand it PETA has not pursued a lawsuit but could this be because the poster willingly agreed to recant? Something done outside the courts would not be public information.
Mike is smart enough to see that my identity was already provided for the world to see by Mr. DeCarlo – 7 months ago….
Try and keep up, will you “Really stupid hiding behind phoney ID, Actually”
Some of the comments on this blog illustrate perfectly the lack of coherent thinking that seems to plague many PETA supporters. These people are most often new to animal welfare – either very young people or middle aged retirees who make a second career of volunteer “animal advocacy,” often focusing their energies on relentless cyber bullying rather than on creating any meaningful change in their own communities. This may give them a way to occupy their time and feel useful, but it does nothing for animals. Those of us who have been involved in animal rights for many decades and have seen behind the curtain resent the effect that PETA’s hypocrisy in regard to companion animals and their ludicrous and detrimental advertising campaigns have had on public perception of this important social justice issue. PETA has succeeded in turning animal rights into a big joke, and some of their followers are helping to perpetuate that joke. PETA does not speak for all animal rights activists. I’m glad the truth about PETA is finally coming out: perhaps grassroots activists can finally take the movement back and begin to make some real progress in changing the way we treat non-human animals.
If anyone would like to see Ms. Newkirk’s blog, where she does not provide one single shred of “evidence” that her imaginary friends, “Nancy and Carol” were bullied or attacked by me or anyone else for that matter, why don’t you share it?
I will if anyone else is interested. It’s embarrassing by Ms. Newkirk’s standards, which, in my opinion, are very low.
Professor Turley,
I would like to apologize for what has occurred here. This is always what occurs when anyone dare criticize PeTA for their killing of cats and dogs at their Virginia “shelter”. It always denigrates into this ridiculous ad hominem, mud slinging event.
One has to wonder if this is on purpose, in order to distract from the fact that PeTA KILLS over 90% of the animals it claims to “rescue” – or if these people (like Really Enjoying This, Actually) are actually *Really* this stupid.
I saw this blog 7 months ago when the news broke of PeTA’s legal action – and saw some of these same people posting my personal information in the comment section. I left it alone, as they are always swarming the entire internet looking for this sort of thing so that they can descend upon the comment section and derail it.
It’s now been 7 months and still they cling to their imagined fantasies of having me “jailed” for my alleged “crimes”.
Again, I apologize for bringing this disgusting display of “discourse” to your blog.
For the rest of you, the legal action- a subpoena for information, not a lawsuit seeking damages- was in part to limit defamation which is not protected under the Constitution. It was therefore morally and ethically right, unless you think the Constitution is not.
But the case- which was highlighted in Ingrid Newkirk’s blog- was also about limiting cyber bullying, stalking and harassment. Its purpose was not solely to get user information and cherish and keep it. Rather it sought to call attention to the illegal behaviors of people who routinely stalk, bully and harass others.
By the way, PeTa withdrew the request for user information, but this does not mean they will not litigate against the defendants directly without going through Huff. This is an extremely high likelihood of occurring and they still have six years to do it.
Really Enjoying This:
Whenever I read juvenile criticisms from persons hiding their identities directed at persons who reveal their identities, guess whose views have more credence?
Again, the subject of Professor Turley’s blog was the legal action taken by PeTA against the Huffington Post, where PeTA alleges to have been “defamed” by certain commenters.
The rest of the allegations that you have added “Really Enjoying This, Actually” are all completely irrelevant to the legal action, which btw, has been withdrawn, “with prejudice” by PeTA. (your grasp of the law is embarrassing weak). Even if what you claim about me were in fact true (and it isn’t) it still would not be at all relevant to this blog.
How many times does this need to be explained to you?
This entire blog was written in response to the legal action that PeTA took against the Huffington Post.
I wish Professor Turley would just get rid of you already Really Enjoying This, Actually.
You have just proven beyond any reasonable doubt that you don’t know what you are talking about.
The lawsuit has even been linked above. Now please go back to your “Cesspool” to spew your fantasies.
Your history of stalking, harassing and bullying others is actually entirely relevant to the context, since that is why PeTa subpoenaed your personal information. The story is Ingrid Newkirk effectively called you to poster child for cyber bullying. Perhaps the ‘Professor’ here is unaware of the context, still, after so many months.
Peta never attempted to sue Huff. Stop lying.
The subject is PeTA and their failed attempt to sue the Huffington Post to find out my identity for posting comments that were and are truthful.
I will continue to discuss PeTA’s record of killing animals.