That made my day. Fuckin' awesome.

Awe, I remember chasing down that lawsuit and writing something up on it... Matt you did a great job of editing it and adding the "SHIT-COVERED FUR HAG!" cut line below the photo. You taught me so much (sigh followed by batting my eyes).

“and for animals, who rely on groups like PETA to convey their pain and protest their slaughter for fur,”

oh please. you won ok. and you should have. BUT it's all about the first amendment (people rights) NOT about "animal rights". Nice try tho Bonnie.

Thats terrible, the guy is just trying to run a legit business, and these people ruin it, then won't pay for it. Weak.

there is nothing legitimate about selling the fur of slaughtered animals.

this is Good,,,people that sell fur should stop !!! how dare that guy up there say that he was just running a legit business !!! who does he think he is..!!! and to the guy that said its not about animals rights...well WHO DOES HE THINK HE IS TOO, because it is about animal rights !!!! who do any of them think they are !?!?!

Who do you think you are?

GREGG SCHUMACHER: Will have to wait 20 more years to update haircut . . .

With no comment on the fur industry (no I don't support it) this is wrong. These groups encouraged people to come out and protest, encourage loud and obnoxious behavior, inflamed passions and emotions, and then claim they are not responsible for "unidentified individuals" behavior.

Complete BS!

These groups need to bear responsibility for their actions, and that means the way these groups fanned the flames. That encouraged the individuals’ actions by drawing on their emotions.

I believe gun manufacturers are responsible for selling weapons to shady dealers who in turn sell weapons to criminals. Gun makes claim they can’t control the dealers. Activist groups hide behind the same logic, “we can’t control individuals’ behavior”. They can control it because they ENCOURAGE IT by inflaming emotions.

Sorry folks but this is yet another example of a scourge in our society, not taking responsibility for your actions. Its always someone else’s fault.

Zac and Bonnie,
In your opinion only! It is still legal to sell fur therefore it is legitimate. You may not agree with it, I certainly don't, but as long as it's legal it's legitimate.

The problem with the current approach to protecting animals rights is that it takes an extremist position, which for the general public diminishes the validity of groups like PETA.

You'd be surprised just how many average people agree with you (more or less) about animal rights. But when groups like PETA take the same stance as the NRA, meaning all or nothing, average people view them as extremist. Positions are polarized and it turns into "us against them".

In case you hadn't noticed, that's the way our country has been run for the last 7 years. Do you think that has worked?

And one more thing. Why is it these groups haven't targeted other stores that sell fur? Why haven't the protests continued at say Saks? They sell fur. It seams that the easiest target was picked, a local business, rather than a large chain. Why is that?

This city used to be cool. Now it has been overrun with transplant from all over the country who have turned it into some homo love-fest.

Get over it people, animals are a useful resource be it clothing, food, or whale blubber. Fur is pretty warm and fuzzy too.

Also, this is just a First Amendment issue if you actually read the judge's opinion so don't get your panties in a bunch.

"homo love-fest"

Nice B. Johnson.

PS love your initials.

Another liberal judge......what a suprize

To bad for Schumacher, I guess I just continue to buy furs in San Francisco. Hey Portlanders, go ahead and try to fuck with me and my furs!

That's why we moved away from portland. What a joke. Over here in Eastern oregon, we protest when they shorten hunting season. Cant wait to go kill some Seals on the columbia.

The court's opinion is, in fact, a glaring defeat for the First Amendment. When the court can decide that one form of speech (protest) has more rights that another form of speech (selling one's legal product) then the court has entered the realm of thought-control. Whether you agree with the issues at hand or not you should recognize that when the court steps in to decide these issues we all lose.
This judge should have allowed the lawsuit brought by Schumackers to proceed, and let a jury of peers determine the value - or lack of value, of the case.

I love animals.

THEY ARE VERY DELICIOUS!

--------------------------------
The cure for global warming (for the people that don't like it).

QUIT BREATHING. Every breath you take is releasing carbon dioxide into the air.

Now they can go beat on OHSU's door.

Sorry Mike, the judge is actually a conservative BUSH APPOINTEE, who served on the Joint Terrorism Task Force. Perhaps you don't understand the law or the First Amendment. Through the first round, the judge was bending over backwards to give the Schumachers the benefit of the doubt (hence the later rescinded restraining orders). Under investigation, it became clear that the Schumacher suit was bogus. But thanks for spouting off about something you know nothing about anyway.

The Oregonian says its closer to a hundred grand. Besides, I bet he gets some dough back on appeal. Hard to have much sypathy for the guy though.

"Appeal" - I love it. No attorney will take his worthless case without tens of thousands on retainer. Schumacher will have his ass shown to him wherever he tries to take his travelling idiot show.

Activists have had weekly fur outreach in front of Nordstroms this fur season since the closing of Schumachers, it's just not making news because Schumacher isn't there to call the press like before.

As for the comment, these groups "encouraged loud obnoxious behavior"... IDA always encouraged legal peaceful behavior at Schumachers, and held workshops teaching skills to deescalate situations when people came to provoke. you're just talking out your ass. PETA wasn't even at the demos.

The judge wasn't liberal, Mosman is a Bush appointee. That makes his comments of Schumacher's "extraordinary abuse" of the legal system that much stronger. Fact is, there was no evidence. But not for lack of trying because Schumacher's security thugs videotaped every minute of every demo. If laws were being broken, there's no reason he wouldn't have been able to bring it in court.

The reason we have anti SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) provisions in the law is that rich bastards like Schumacher or corporations could tie up activists in court and waste their limited resources, and worse, restrict their first amemdment rights on totally bogus charges. In that sense, justice and free speech was served well in Mosman's opinion.

Well said 'i was there'. I was there too. The Portland police also observed the protests. We the activists had a good working relationship with the police during the time doing outreach there. The Schumachers had no evidence. I'm amazed at the dense nature of the Schumacher supporters...what part of 'no evidence' don't you understand. To the Schumachers allegations equal evidence (I've read all the court docs, I suggest all you Schumacher sympathizers do the same). That's not how it works, allegations are just...allegations...not evidence. The Schumachers lie. Truth was on the side of the activists. As was stated above, Judge Mosman is not a liberal, he was appointed by "W". He does respect constitutionally protected free speech rights and he saw thru the Schuamcher lies (in the court docs...GS did not provide live testimony though he had the opportunity and one of the named activists did). Judge Mosman gave the Schumachers numerous opportunities to provide evidence of illegal behavior by the named defendants, was more than patient, and the Schumachers never did (provide the evidence). Good on him, Judge Mosman.