PETA features Michelle Obama in new anti-fur ad without her consent

[babylonsister]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MICHELLE_OBAMA_PETA?SITE=CONGRA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


PETA features Michelle Obama in new anti-fur ad


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The fur is flying over a new ad campaign by an animal rights group the White House says is using first lady Michelle Obama's image without her permission.

The president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Ingrid Newkirk, said her organization wouldn't have sought Mrs. Obama's consent for the anti-fur ad because it knows that she can't make such an endorsement.

PETA included the first lady in its Washington ad campaign based on White House confirmation that she does not wear fur.

Mrs. Obama appears in the ad with celebrities Oprah Winfrey, Carrie Underwood and Tyra Banks - three others who have shunned fur. The ads are appearing in Washington's Metro stations, magazines and PETA's Web site.

[Writer]

1. MAJOR appropriation suit. n/t

[hlthe2b]

2. PETA may be extreme in some areas, but I appreciate their work

against the fur industry...There are two fur stores in a Denver shopping/restaurant area, where I walk my dog after dark on occasion. On Saturdays an anti-fur group has religiously picketed for the past two years, and I must say I have NEVER seen anyone enter either store. Obviously someone is, though...

While this is a more upscale area of Denver, I'd almost never seen anyone wearing fur, until the last major storm right after Christmas, when I saw a young (fashion-plate looking) female wearing a full length fur coat on the street. She was so oblivious and obviously feeling no guilt for the coat and what it represents. It was so jarring to see and elicited a real visceral reaction, I must admit... I know some can argue that those of us who wear leather are no better. I do think it quite different, given that cows are used for meat and milk and not simply raised for their coat. At any rate, I can understand the temptation to throw red paint on someone wearing fur, though I would never do so, of course. Nonetheless, I do credit PETA in helping to change attitudes.

[YOY]

3. Oh...a PETA thread!!!!

:popcorn:

[demosincebirth]

4. PETA? They ought to do something useful....like, maybe, feed the homeless

[hlthe2b]

9. I don't wish to defend PETA...

but your comment is sort of like excoriating Susan G. Komen Foundation for not tackling prostate cancer instead of its focus on breast cancer. Feeding the homeless, curing cancer, banning landmines--all important, but PETA is founded on protecting animal rights.... (That said, I would agree that PETA is really "out there" in terms of its methods)

[demosincebirth]

10. Your statement "I don't wish to defend Peta," says it all.

[hlthe2b]

11. Meaning What?

[Ignis]

15. Meaning that if you dare to suggest that PETA has one iota of worth...

You will automatically be labeled a crazy zealot vegan who doesn't understand science and who hates humans.

It's not pretty, but it's DU. :hi:

[hlthe2b]

16. ...

It is always interesting to see what will send DUers on a witch hunt....:shrug:

[Ignis]

20. I assume you're not veg*n, nor a PETA member.

(If you are, oops. :D )

Your attackers probably assume that you're a vegan or a PETA member, because they can't wrap their wee brains around the fact that you're defending someone when you have no horse in the race.

But you strike me as a conscientious DUer who is simply trying to keep DU free from the same sort of slavering, hate-filled, broad-brush bigotry that we come here to avoid.

I'm frustrated that people like yourself are able to be attacked in such a penalty-free and *ahem* bulletproof fashion by a vocal minority of DUers who cannot stand to see anyone stick up for animal rights organizations.

So, thank you. :patriot:

[hlthe2b]

22. You are correct... I am neither vegan nor PETA member..

Big proponent of animal rights, which means to me, working towards modifying the tactics of organizations with which I disagree... :shrug:

and thank, you. ;)

[Ignis]

23. Precisely.

When the DLC does something idiotic, I don't say, "That's it, I've had it with Democrats and their causes!" I work to change the tactics (or even the strategy).

:thumbsup:

[Ignis]

13. Just like the ACLU feeds the homeless? (nt)

[superduperfarleft]

17. Why do you care so much about feeding the homeless?

Don't you know there's starving kids in Africa!!!!

[Ignis]

21. Damn! I failed the Important Cause Du Jour test! (nt)

[demosincebirth]

25. We're not talking about the ACLU, are we?

[Ignis]

27. Sure we are. The first clue is the letters A, C, L, and U in my post.

So, any substantial response forthcoming, or just more obfuscation and dodging?

If it helps, I'd prefer the former, but follow your bliss. :hi:

[kestrel91316]

5. Why am I not surprised that PETA fails to respect the rights of HUMANS

(in this case Michelle Obama) while harping about animal rights. I think she oughtta sue their asses nine ways from Sunday. And I hope she wins.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. I'm just gonna leave this PETA picture here...

[denem]

18. I'd rather wear be a white hood than wear fur?

Don't cook animals, burn crosses?

[CakeGrrl]

6. The President should swat a few more flies in retaliation

:evilgrin:

[flvegan]

8. She looks great!

[valerief]

12. One way to get press, I guess. nt

[Ignis]

14. So many armchair lawyers, so little time.

Yes, a public figure who has publicly stated (through her spokesperson) that she does not wear fur should definitely sue an attention-seeking organization like PETA for using her likeness in an ad that boldly claims that she doesn't wear fur.

Please, please don't throw PETA in the briar patch. :eyes:

[TheBigotBasher]

24. Indeed

I doubt public figures can sue for using a picture of them, unless it breaks (c).

[Odin2005]

19. More PETA dumbfuckery.

[Arkana]

26. PETA's gotta know that would cause a kerfuffle.

That, of course, being what they're after, so that they can scream in front of a microphone that people who enjoy steak are FILTHY, FILTHY MURDERERS.