PETA Protest in Bakersfield

PETA: Exploiting women instead of animals.

Slightly changing topic, do you see this story about the anarchists who were bothering the indigenous people on the coast of Washington/Canada when they were catching a whale.
So the federal government has them on charges of threatening the workers of this company, and they describe their posting personal info about the workers, and also a list of possible bad things that volunteers could do to them, such as killing their children and sending an undertaker to collect their body when they're not dead yet. Does anyone know whether, legally, posting the list of violent acts that someone could theoretically do is enough to get a conviction. Does the demeanor of the language used in the internet threat matter? In many chatrooms such as the Free Republic, you see people jokingly describe their intentions to hurt other people, but in the context it seems like few people would actually act on the threat. Many websites involve verbal description of violence.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/05/27/MNGEA6S6OR23.DTL
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/175171_terrorism27.html

Last year, posters on Free Republic called for people to run down anti-war protesters with their cars. This happened in at least six cities, as far apart as SF, Vancouver and Copenhagen. Fortunately, nobody died. One guy had a leg broken.

It is at our mortal peril that we dismiss threats against us. This is even more true of journalists, than it is of protesters, as the death of Alan Berg made abundantly clear. We who do authentic journalism should watch our own backs and each other's.

So, it is illegal to post death threats on a web site?

Who is Alan Berg?

My ex-housemate was a journalist and some supporters of a child rapist got really angry at his story about it and started trying to follow him home, threw a brick through the windows of their offices, and months later still are making threats backed up with some level of real intention so he left the area. It's weird how many supporters a child rapist can have. He raped dozens of kids within the religious community and some of them even became pregnant and had to raise the babies.

Peta is not exploiting women. These women beleive in something, and are making their own choices to do something about it. Women showing alot of skin attract attention, and these women want attention for their cause. It got you to look. Do the math.
As far as the rest of these comments, have any of you ever heard of staying on topic in a discussion forum? Please find a news article about abuse or threats to post a comment about such. It is completely irrelevant here. The fact that the original mention of threats concerned an incident with people trying to save whales does not mean it has anything to do with Peta protesters against leather.

>These women beleive in something, and are making their own choices to do something about it.

So do strippers. They believe in having more money than capitalism is willing to pay them for using their brains.

However, that does not mean that PETA is not exploiting these women.

PETA makes money off these women in exactly the same way a strip club owner makes money off strippers.

Yes but a strip club owner makes money for profit, peta makes money for the animals........one has the choice to profit for self or to profit for a cause.......