Ohhh...don't give PETA any more press by publishing their list. They are a threat to pet owners everywhere.

I agree with PETA that fur is for animal's, the tactic's of personal attacks on people doing something legal, is akin to attacking Christians because they believe in Jesus, or Muslims' because they believe in Allah

It is a freedom of choice to wear fur at present, it is a legal industry. As it is a freedom of choice to choose interracial marriage, which I don't agree with, but does that give me the right as a journalist, to personally attack interracially partnered celeberty couple's to make my point ? because it is my point, and not illegal.

And I can imagine my comparisons may sound extreme to some, but if you think about it - it's the same, I am a Black American, there are many in my culture that don't understand the fur industry, or the way it operates, fur is a statement of glamour to them, and at this point they're right to expression in any way they feel in what they wear, they feel it is they're right to wear fur, and what we wear is an non-verbal expression, an expression which may be tastless to some, but none the less legal.

or is there selective freedom of expression ? I think the priorty with protecting the rights of aninmals is right up there with human rights, but until everyone has the right to the same education, or sophistication that education brings, PETA's tactics are unfair, it is education thet changes thing's not personal attacks on choice.

It's interesting how the above comment endorses freedom of expression for celebrities, but not for animal rights organizations. If the fact that something is *legal* barred one from expressing disapproval of that institution/situation/behavior, no reforms would ever be made; which means, of course, we would still have miscegenation laws, and interracial marriage would be illegal--and apparently, by herb's logic, it would then be alright to attack interracial couples for their illegal personal choices.
As for the personal *attack*, does this list come with some sort of incitement to violence? Some suggestion of a vigilante solution? Even some old-fashioned paint-throwing? No? Then it seems like they are simply expressing an opinion, without causing any tangible harm. Why is this something to get worked up about?
I also don't appreciate the suggestion that black culture is ignorant of the fur industry, as well as ignorant of the distinction between plurals, contractions, and possessives.