Cockfighting on Web Enters Legal Arena

Cockfighting is illegal in all 50 states, but contests held elsewhere are available for viewing on the Internet.
Cockfighting is illegal in all 50 states, but contests held elsewhere are available for viewing on the Internet. (
By Peter Whoriskey
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 22, 2007

MIAMI -- One evening last week, two roosters in a ring surrounded by cheering spectators pecked and clawed one another in a fight to the death. With each lunge, feathers flew, then floated to the ground. Finally, one bloodied bird, its eyes plucked out, lurched and faltered.

"Red is blinded," shouted the announcer. "Red goes down. . . . Now he's really hurt. . . . A tremendous blow by Blue!"

Every state in the nation has a law banning cockfighting. But this match was held in Puerto Rico, where the fights are legal, and transmitted to the States by the Web site

The Web site's backers defend it as an exploration of cultural traditions. But the site has also triggered a federal lawsuit in Miami that asks whether Internet feeds of cockfighting can be sold legally in the United States, to people in places where cockfighting has been banned.

The change in the focus of the debate -- from live fights to video depictions of them -- has expanded the argument over cockfighting's cruelty into one that involves the First Amendment and, its defenders say, cockfighting's cultural significance in other countries.

"It's a historical sport; they've been practicing it for thousands of years, and I'm just documenting it," said Jason Atkins, whose Hollywood, Fla., company is behind the Web site.

On one side is his company, Advanced Consulting and Marketing, which argues that cockfighting is a venerable tradition in many countries, including the Philippines and Thailand, and that stifling it is a violation of the First Amendment. The company has sued to overturn a 1999 law that prohibits interstate sales of images depicting cruelty to animals. If it is unable to achieve that, it wants the law interpreted to allow coverage of cockfights.

On the other side of the legal divide are animal rights groups that see the activity as disgusting and cruel.

"It's an indefensible form of staging fights -- watching these animals hack each other to death," said Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, which has led the campaign against the contests.

Drawing a comparison to child pornography, Pacelle argued that the cockfighting Web site should be considered illegal.

"Any sensible person can see there is no socially redeeming aspect of cockfighting," he said.

At the heart of the dispute is a law signed by President Bill Clinton that makes it illegal to create, sell or possess a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of selling the depiction -- across state lines or internationally -- for commercial gain.

CONTINUED     1        >

© 2007 The Washington Post Company