Fed Ex Is A Delivery Service, Not A Package Contents Assessment Service
Fed Ex -- admirably and correctly -- refused to pay the government off like UPS did (to the tune of $40 million) for delivering packages of drugs from Internet pharmacies. The government has now indicted Fed Ex for refusing to capitulate.
Per Mike Masnick at Techdirt, the government is trying to spin stories into evidence that Fed Ex "knew" what was in those packages.
Scott Greenfield writes at SimpleJustice:
Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't. So what? FedEx is in the business of delivering packages. There is no crime in that. It is not in the business of accessing the lawfulness of the contents of the packages it delivers. And this is what pissed the government off.FedEx is fighting these claims pretty aggressively, insisting that it's crazy to make it responsible for what's in the packages:"We are a transportation company -- we are not law enforcement."
An additional note from Masnick:
The company notes that it has long asked the DOJ to provide it with a list of online pharmacies that it shouldn't do business with, so that it didn't have to just guess. The government did not provide the list, and seems to think that FedEx must be psychic (and should know what's in all packages and whether or not they're illegal.
This is so important that Fed Ex is standing up to the government on this. As I've said about people who stand up for their own civil liberties, they end up standing up for the civil liberties of all of us. And this also goes -- and especially goes -- for lawyers like Marc Randazza and Ken White (@Popehat), who take cases of those of us who stand up against the near-constant erosion of our civil liberties these days.
More from Scott's post:
The secondary market offers a terrible way to fight crime, where government pressure forces companies engaged in lawful commerce to risk their fortunes on the legality of their customers, and become liable for not investigating and condemning anything with a whiff of impropriety at their own criminal risk.There are a list of businesses the government squeezes to shut down those it can't get legitimately. Credit card companies are pressured to refuse payments to companies the government hates. Banks are pressured to refuse their deposits. Now delivery companies are pressured to refuse to deliver their goods.
Note that the primary means of attack, indict and prosecute the party who is alleged to be engaging in criminal conduct is no longer necessary, if they can be shut down via more compliant sources. This saves the government from having to prove they committed a crime, and instead allows the government to strangle any business it pleases through secondary means.
So do you want FedEx deciding whether the contents of your parcel are worthy of their risk to deliver it? Do you want the government shutting down businesses, perhaps industries, they decide are evil, or maybe just don't like very much, by putting the squeeze on secondary providers to terminate their relationships and services?
The Federal agency, TSA, cannot tell what is loaded on an airliner. No wonder they want to make someone else responsible.
Responsible? Not in the dictionary for Federal agencies. Yet crazy people think such agencies will take care of them!
Radwaste at July 19, 2014 9:13 AM
It is a well known fact, by all medical professionals, that if you want unrestricted cheap access to prescription drugs, you take a cruise to the Bahamas, Mexico, or Central America.
Obviously, if Fed Ex capitulates, it will provide a needed economic boost to the struggling cruise industry.
Isab at July 19, 2014 9:25 AM
FedEx is also non-union while UPS is heavily unionized.
I don't know if that had anything to do with it, but this is not an administration that looks kindly upon non-union companies.
The difference is that "FedEx, which started as an air transport company but has since expanded to ground service, falls under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), while UPS, which started as a ground service, falls under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In practice, that makes it very hard for FedEx workers to unionize."
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2010/04/fedex-and-unionization
UPS has been crying foul that its chief competitor, FedEx, does not have to put up with union contracts and work rules that have hamstrung UPS.
Lobbied by UPS and the Teamsters, Democrats in Congress tried in 2010 to put FedEx under the NLRA so it could be unionized, but failed.
Notice that the Democrat-sponsored solution to the disparity was not to move UPS under the union-hostile RLA, but to put FedEx under the union-friendly NLRA.
Conan the Grammarian at July 19, 2014 4:28 PM
This is the same thing that happened to Gibson Guitar but not Martin guitar.
Gibson is a Republican donor and non-union. Martin is a Democratic donor and unionized.
Jim P. at July 19, 2014 9:37 PM
Leave a comment