Who’s Afraid of BugMeNot?

Chris Pirillo has posted an e-mail he received from a newspaper after he posted an article about Bug Me Not which is a site/tool to get around those annoying newspaper splash pages that either want you to sign up for an account to access the newspaper or (and worse IMO), simply ask you for demographic information like your age and zip code when you visit the site.

Ed Leighton-Dick of Gazette Communications wrote to Pirillo to complain that,

Advertisers go where they can get the most “bang” for their buck, and if we can provide a little aggregate information for them through registration to allow them to target their advertising, they will advertise with us. Many advertisers will not advertise with a newspaper site without that information anymore, and without the advertising, the only option is to erect subscription gates. (And for the record, I know of no newspaper companies who still sell e-mail lists to third parties nor any who send e-mails without permissions. That undermines the credibility we’re trying to maintain.)

Leighton-Dick doesn’t come out and say it, but he seems to think that the aggregated demographic data his newspaper has from such registrations is accurate. But does anybody really fill out this stuff truthfully? I usually register as an 80 year old woman from New York.

I can’t believe that a potential advertiser would accept this data as accurate. The newspapers I’ve dealt with for online advertising usually have much better sources of demographics — the best have hired outside firms to do formal random surveys to determine how widely read the web site is in the surround area and then report on specific demographics of those who are, say, frequent vs. infrequent visitors.

Illinois Horse Slaughter Ban Amendment Rejected

In May, the Illinois House of Representatives voted 61-50 to reject an amendment to a bill that would have banned the slaughtering of horses for food in that state.

The Illinois Senate had approved the amendment by a vote of 38-15, and there is still a small possibility that a conference committee to reconcile the different versions of the bill could yet reinstate the horse slaughter ban.

The ban is directed at Cavel International in DeKalb, Illinois, where horses are slaughtered and the meat packaged for export. The Illinois Leader reported Cavel International project manager James Tucker saying,

We’re getting a very loud minority who’s making a lot of noise about this. We shouldn’t be defining for other cultures what they eat . . . horsemeat exportation is a multi-million dollar business and good for Illinois’ economy.

Source:

Horse slaughter bill not done yet, senate sponsor says. Joyce Morrison, Illinois Leader, June 2, 2004.

Lawyers for Indicted SHAC Activists Complain about Bail Terms, Charges

On May 28, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty activists Kevin Kjonaas, Lauren Gazzola and Jacob Conroy appeared before a federal judge who granted the three bail on their own recognizance.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Wayne D. Brazil did issue a two-paragraph order preventing the two from, according to the Oakland Tribune, “disseminating any personal or private information about company employees and their families, and from threatening or inducing others to threaten anyone.”

Attorney’s for the three activists, however, said the order was not clear enough and asked Brazil for further clarification as to what the three can and cannot do. Brazil said he could not do so, but that the order was clear enough. “‘Go smash up someone’s car’ — that’s inducement,” Brazil said. “Exercising your political views is not inducement . . . you know you can’t threaten people, period.”

Andrea Lindsay made a statement outside the courtroom, however, saying that,

The indictment fails to pin one criminal act on any of these defendants . . . The indictments against these animal protection activists are nothing more than a clear attack on free speech and SHAC USA will be as s rigorous in its defense as it has been in its opposition to animal cruelty.

Lindsay also claimed that SHAC’s website simply reports on acts by other animal rights activists but does not incite them.

Michael Drewniak, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s office in New Jersey, said the facts would show otherwise,

Their Web site doesn’t just report — it incites harassment, intimidation and violence against individuals associated with Huntingdon. It defies logic to say they merely report things.

Source:

Lawyers for animal rights activists criticize government case. KTVU.Com, May 28, 2004.

Animal group vows to carry on. Josh Richman, Oakland Tribune, May 29, 2004.