"Amazon.com has vowed to fight on in the case, arguing it has a constitutional right to advertise and sell illegal animal fighting paraphernalia — a bizarre position that the publishers of "The Gamecock" magazine have now decided not to press in court, and which the Supreme Court unequivocally rejected in Williams by a 7-2 vote."
created Jun 08, 2008 by Jim Cowie
1 response
i would love to hear an explanation of Amazon's position - but at the same time, i have trouble with them being held accountable for the actions and editorial choices of the magazine's publishers. my question would be, is the magazine itself illegal? i realize the answer is probably yes - but it seems that Amazon isn't the one to go after. the publisher is.
Once registered, you can create your own stories. Click on the Post button to get started.