There are hundreds of organizations striving for animal rights. They post advertisements, hold protests, and publish articles for the safety of animals being slain everyday either for food or clothing. The group called People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) does the same thing with others, but is renowned for being somewhat different. It strips off women for its campaigns under the name of animal rights.
“Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for experiment, or abuse in any other way” goes the creed of PETA. This organization is grounded in the desirable purpose and goal of animal protection alike many other groups. Its members make an active movement utilizing advertisements, Internet homepage, and videos. One point that separates this group from others is its provocative way of delivering its message. Its videos, articles, and especially advertisements go far beyond the appropriate boundary of acceptance.
It is not difficult to find blood and violence on PETA’s homepage. The articles with the titles “Sheep Punched, Stomped on, Cut for Wool” and “Bullfighting in One Minute” directly shows the tragic situation of animal abuse without any filters. Men in the wool factory beat the sheep on the snout and stomach to stop the sheep from floundering. On a cold floor lie the creatures naked, covered only with blood. With factuality being their main value, PETA reveals the truth without hiding the gory details, even though it crosses the line of decency.
Another theme of PETA can be undoubtedly defined as lascivious and sexual. While violence appeared in its videos, articles, and advertisements, the topic of obscenity has only been prevalent in advertisements. That is to say, well-known celebrities stripped their clothes off covering only the least under the slogan “Rather Go Naked than Wear Fur”. Olivia Munn, Karina Smirnoff, Jenna Dewan Tatum, and many more have participated in this campaign and displayed their nudity like one of the skittish trends. They lie down with sultry eyes and voluptuous body as if to say “I am not wearing fur, but still am sexy.”
The aim of the campaign is definitely admirable but the means of expression is quite out of focus. As for the advertisements with nudity, it is difficult to find the moral of animal rights protection. Most are not even slightly up to the point of delivering the message. For instance, Pamela Anderson sits wearing only a bikini and wide grin is dangling on her face. Several dark lines are on her body as if to show that she is now divided into parts like a cow to be butchered. People can seek the message of the poster if they can, but most will last with looking at her huge breasts and well-shaped butt. Her smile and sky-blue bikini do not even match the gloomy message the advertisement probably should convey.
About this issue, there have been several court cases judging the degree of PETA’s violent and obscene contents. This organization claimed freedom of expression in every case with great consistency and the ambiguity of freedom of expression itself in media contributed in giving reasons to its assertion. As for the violence, the message had been clear and PETA only should practice moderation to resolve the problem. However, with the lascivious contents of the advertisements, PETA has totally lost its way of saving animals and most likely made a provocative magazine for male viewers. It just added the slogan over the photos of celebrities showing off their slim lines.
For PETA to justify their logic of freedom of speech, it should amend their degree of exposure and give reasonable causes for any stimulus it provides. It is understandable on the point that it attempted to grab the attention of the. Nonetheless, their means had been excessive and unfortunately led to the overwhelming of its genuine purpose. It is definitely the right time for PETA to look back on its true reasons for existence.