Anti-Fur Activists Pelt Lohan With Flour
Actress Targeted By PETA After Being Criticized For Wearing Fur
-
Actress Lindsay Lohan, right, and disc jockey Samantha Ronson pose for photographers as they arrive at the VIP Room night club in Paris, Saturday, Nov. 14, 2008. (AP Photo/Thibault Camus)
-
Photo Essay Celebrity Circuit "New Moon" stars in L.A.; Goldie Hawn in India, Beyonce in Egypt and Penelope Cruz in Rome
Animal rights activists showered the 22-year-old actress with flour when she went to the VIP Room Theater in the early hours of Saturday with her friend, disc jockey Samantha Ronson.
The owner of the nightclub helped Lohan dust off her blue sequined dress and black stole before she posed on the red carpet.
Ronson went on to spin tracks for a crowd that included reggae rapper Shaggy and "I Kissed a Girl" singer Katy Perry.
Earlier this year People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals named Lohan to its list of the "Worst-Dressed" Celebrities of 2008, citing the actress and others for wearing furs, snakeskin and other apparel made from animals.
Others mentioned by PETA included Aretha Franklin, Eva Longoria, Kate Moss and Marilyn Manson.
Robbie LeBlanc of PETA Europe said of the incident, "Lindsay Lohan might be able to ignore images of bloody animals skinned alive for their pelts, but we hope a dash of flour will help her rise to the occasion and forsake fur once and for all."
Lohan sparked a different controversy earlier this week following an interview where she referred to President-elect Barack Obama in a TV interview as the country's "first colored president."
Describing her experience on Election Day on the show "Access Hollywood," Lohan said: "It was really exciting. It's an amazing feeling. It's our first colored president."
A spokeswoman for Lohan didn't immediately return messages left Wednesday.
Interviewer Maria Menounos didn't question the 22-year-old actress on her use of the term, which dates back to the period when blacks were legally discriminated against. "Access Hollywood" also didn't cite her remark in its online story, but did post an "extended interview" video on its Web site that included the remark.
A spokesman for the syndicated entertainment news program said in a statement Wednesday: "We believe the word in question that Ms. Lohan used was unintelligible."
Lohan blogged about her support of Obama during the presidential campaign.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."





- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 91 CommentsPosted by drkraut at 08:29 PM : Nov 15, 2008
I think some did once. Then they found out what cruelty from animals looked like.
Clearly you lack imagination, but give it a try. Picture yourself out for a night on the town. You aren''t the most popular person around and you know some people hate you because of your lifestyle.
Out of the dark, people jump out, yell at you, and start to throw an unknown substance at you, striking your skin and clothing.
If you can manage to work up a bit of HUMAN compassion, you can possible get a sense of the terror this act may have induced.
If Lohan''s possible fear is funny to you, then you aren''t going to understand what I''m talking about. It''s quite possible a judge or jury might, however.
Posted by andor3 at 07:37 PM : Nov 15, 2008
if the white in the hair is moving.....
Any "activist" who assaults me for whatever idiotic reason,
will rapidly discover that my state has a concealed-carry law.
It IS ILLEGAL to assault someone.
It IS NOT ILLEGAL for me to defend myself
from attacks by anyone.
END OF DISCUSSION
Any "activist" who assaults me for whatever idiotic reason,
will rapidly discover that my state has a concealed-carry law.
It IS ILLEGAL to assault someone.
It IS NOT ILLEGAL for me to defend myself
from attacks by anyone.
END OF DISCUSSION
Posted by gce65
You''re right. With all the diarrhea of the mouth that the PETA supporters suffer, they should have unlimited supplies.
And of course, humans are not among the animals that PETA considers worth protecting from injury or terror, so why wouldn''t they?
PETA has donated money to defend Fran Trutt, who attempted to murder a man, a human animal.
Supporting an attempted murderer is not beneath them. Why would throwing their $ h i t at a young human animal be beneath them?
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 91 Comments