I think PETA made the right decision in this case. Britney is obviously NOT well mentally and is not in her right mind. She needs serious, long-term psychological help, and no worst-dressed distinction or other PETA action will have an effect on her. After she has undergone treatment, hopefully she'll be open to leading a better life, one that doesn't include cruelty of ANY sort!

Posted by: BullyDawg | January 8, 2008 03:08 PM

Brit got over $30,000 worth of fur coats on her birthday a month or so ago, so she seems to be worthy of PETA attention.

That said, she has other issues to worry about, and I think PETA is right to leave her out of this one, for now.

Posted by: rachel | January 8, 2008 03:10 PM

You made the wrong choice!

Posted by: Ana | January 8, 2008 03:19 PM

Granted Britney has had a rough time but not nearly as rough as the animals had giving up their fur for her to wear!
Please keep her on the List!
Peace!

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter for Animals | January 8, 2008 03:32 PM

Yea, I think it is probably right to leave Brit-Brit out of this round.

I know people who suffer from mental illness and it's not easy, or pretty.

BUT: Can we get Brit on the pink wig and the crotch shots? I could have done without both last year...:P

Posted by: Tamara | January 8, 2008 03:41 PM

if someone is crazy and kills another person the person who got killed is no less dead- i say put her ass back on there- nut job or not helpless animals died for her coat- screw her

Posted by: Russell | January 8, 2008 03:44 PM

I think you made the wrong choice

Posted by: Anonymous | January 8, 2008 03:57 PM

COMPASSION FOR ANOTHER HUMAN BEING FROM THE PETA HIT SQUAD... WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TOO?

Posted by: COMMON SENSE STEVE | January 8, 2008 04:06 PM

I remember a few years ago, she was at a McDonald's just after she had her baby. She was trying to give the baby its bottle and some real jerks were literally shoving tv cameras in her face.

She was crying, and the baby was crying. The level of disrespect and harassment was, in my opinion, criminal. She was obviously trying to just escape and they kept blocking her from leaving the restaurant.

Where the FUCK were her parents, her glorified boyfriend, or any chivalry (obviously dead) to defend this young girl and her crying newborn baby?

If I had been her mother I would have made sure those idiots suffered for harassing Britteny and her baby.

Shame on all of America and the media for the low life and sexist display of underwear-drawer obsession they have over celebs. Oh, I'm sure there are NO male celebs who drink and drive or have no idea how to raise a baby! Jesus Christ, there's a war going on and the planet is collapsing, don't we have better shit to focus on??

That said, it is shocking to me that someome could wear even one fur, much less hundreds of furs. It really is a tragedy. However, the level of torture we have put this woman through, maybe we can just focus on celebs who haven't been through hell.

A compassionate move, PETA.

Posted by: Maya, CVT | January 8, 2008 04:34 PM

I think it's the right choice. She's got enough to worry about right now--there's something seriously wrong with her brain. Give her a chance to recover and then--back at it!

Posted by: Canaduck | January 8, 2008 04:47 PM

the problem is that i think that britney truly loves animals but for the moment she is not herself! also she is a member of the humane society and did ads for the first step against cruelty to animals! in this sence i would say that PETA did the right thing to take her out - for the moment! furthermore i think that deeply in their heart lindsay lohan, kate bosworth, vanessa williams and eva longoria are animal lovers but committing some fauxpas! the best would be if PETA would send for them all the necessary material for information to bring them up into the right conscience! those i mentioned here are not to put into the same pot with mean stubbern freaks like stone, blige and jlo the infernal trio! concerning the male fur-wearers: they are all selfish and stupid people and deserve their place on the list! and i add also celine dion!

Posted by: little big woman | January 8, 2008 04:49 PM

and what's with kate moss? i thought that she stopped wearing fur and that PETA sent her flowers???????

Posted by: captain nemo | January 8, 2008 04:53 PM

I agree with you BullyDawg.
PETA prides itself on encouraging people to let go of their 'cave-man ways' like wearing fur and eating meat, but another caveman issue out there is the oppression of mentally unbalanced. And despite everything, PETA shouldn't be abandoning human rights.

Posted by: Mystique Makepeace | January 8, 2008 05:30 PM

My first time to the PETA site. Following the links in this article, I watched the undercover Chinese fur farm video. I'm not a vegetarian, but I've never owned fur and don't subscribe to the killing of animals for fashion. I just have to say, I had NO idea whatsoever that animals were being skinned alive. I'm still crying and in distress over this movie. Perhaps this information of animals being skinned alive needs to be put out there through other channels as well so more can learn about this. I can't believe a person with any heart at all could wear fur after seeing that video.

Posted by: Susanne | January 8, 2008 05:36 PM

Ugh, no, she shouldn't be removed from the list. She isn't stupid, she knows between right and wrong. Her bad behavior shouldn't be an excuse to let all those little animals suffer!

Posted by: K | January 8, 2008 05:52 PM

...but on the other hand, I can see this as being a wise choice (for PETA). I can imagine if Britney wins this, people will be picking on PETA for picking on her (given her condition and how much she's been picked on already). But I still think she is still accountable for her actions.

Posted by: K | January 8, 2008 06:18 PM

Peta made the wrong decision. Britney is a selfish person who unlike the animals she wears is a even more selfish mother.

Posted by: Kyle | January 8, 2008 06:55 PM

She's crazy, she deserves the bad press. She does it to herself, and refuses to get help. Keep her on the list!

Posted by: kinnyc | January 8, 2008 07:43 PM

Right choice.

I feel very sorry for her. She's just way too young and her life is too invaded.

She doesn't need any more pressure from anyone right now.

(I also think PETA should work more on applying this pressure to more male celebrities. Stop hating on women so much.)

Posted by: Elaine Vigneault | January 8, 2008 07:46 PM

Isn't PETA an advocacy group for animals? Why is Dan Matthews patronizing us with a comment on how mothers should dress?? You guys can take the first sentence of that quote out. PETA does its best work when focusing on specific issues instead of trying to sell a lifestyle.

Posted by: je | January 8, 2008 08:29 PM

It's not right to kick somebody when they're down.

Thanks PETA

Posted by: Richard | January 8, 2008 08:34 PM

I feel this is a good move on PETA's part, as leaving Britney on the list would weaken their message. If she won the title, the focus would be on the Britney bashing, rather than the anti-fur campaign.

Posted by: DS | January 8, 2008 09:29 PM

There are still plenty of other horrible fur hags out there to focus on, so I do not think it is a bad thing to take Britney off the list.

J. "low" is one of the worst offenders, because she is apparently not insane, not in constant crisis, supposedly an adult, with no apparent substance abuse problems, yet she still refuses to listen to PETA and other animal rights activists regarding the cruelty in wearing fur.

Britney is VERY immature, and she probably did not get much of a stable upbringing, and she still needs to deal with growing up and deciding if she wants to truly be a parent to her children. Once she has some stability in her life, then she can go back on PETA's "to do" list, if she is indeed still wearing fur.

Posted by: Michele | January 8, 2008 09:40 PM

its definitely the right choice simply and plainly because if she were to win, and seemed like she was going to, its not as if she is in a state where she is really going to care and make an effort to talk with PETA and understand why wearing fur is lame. I think madonna should win, she seems like the type of person that should not only know better but would be willing to make a change if she got this type of bad publicity. Britney is just...gone.

Posted by: vida | January 9, 2008 12:04 AM

Britney is too sweet to wear fur! :( I hope she stops soon!

Posted by: Curtis | January 9, 2008 06:03 AM

I agree this was the right choice..Peta is not a group that needs a reputation of kicking people when they are down. I do also agree with you K about being held accountable for actions..but as Vegetarians/Vegans it is important for all of us to continue to be looked upon as having compassion for all living beings. This girl is in serious trouble, and if she keeps being pushed I am scared the end result will be her ending it all....Regardless of the fact she does not exactly get the mommy of the year award it would be devastating if she took her own life knowing that there are two children involved. Maybe one day she will take a 360 degree turn around, but I feel as long as all this negative pressure is placed on her she will continue to make stupid choices.

Posted by: Dana | January 9, 2008 08:14 AM

I don't think it's the right decision. Even though she may not be able to make her own decisions, I'm sure that she pays someone to choose her clothes!! THat people should learn too!!

Posted by: Tania | January 9, 2008 10:08 AM

yes you made the right choice. the girl needs a break. If/once she gets her ducks in a row then hit her hard if she doesn't see the error of her ways.

Posted by: Lindsay | January 9, 2008 10:31 AM

I dunno, Jack. I think this might be a case of speciesism.

Remember, everybody, the point of animal rights to CHANGE "common sense" (you too, Steve-O) by overcoming our prejudices against taking other animals seriously. It would be pretty tough to "leave Britney alone" if she were supporting a similar amount of pain inflicted on, say, homo sapiens.

Talking of changing "common sense," I'm not totally sure why this so well-hidden on PETA's website, but:

http://www.peta.org/about/animallib-singer.asp

Posted by: Mark | January 9, 2008 10:46 AM

I love PETA for a few reasons...but am really proud of them when they're compassion for animals extends to all animals...including humans.

Great move...compassion always wins.

Posted by: Christopher H. | January 9, 2008 11:49 AM

Britney is an idiot and mental health issues or not, I don't think she cares at all about the suffering of animals or anything else for that matter.I would'nt hold my breathe for her "recovery".

Posted by: Karen | January 9, 2008 12:18 PM

Attention please: Furs are not just dangerous for animals (to be skinned alive) but also for people and here is my proof:

You all know that elderly dogs have not a very good sight so:
Years ago i was sporting faux-fur - i never had real-ones because of the cruelty and it happened two times in my life that i was almost attacked by dogs because they took me for a giant bear or something! in the first case my mother could keep the dog - he neither knew her but he was keen on me so i started to reflect why and i came to the conclusion: we wanted to adopt that 11 year old st. bernard dog with a bad sight and he really took me for a huge wild animal! the second time it was on the street when on a distance of about 40m a dog run furiously towards me without hearing at the shouts of his master! but i had already an experience and quickly took the faux-fur off and threw it on the ground! the dog stopped in front of me, stared at the coat and then run back to his master! from that day on i never put anything with a furry appearance and was quiet! so when dogs are attacking people it's very important to ask what they were wearing because it's obvious that wearing a heavy fur-coat could cause such incidents! i know also from another case but that woman she was wearing real fur; a huge beaver and just could save herself into a house!!!

SO: FURS ARE NOT FOR PEOPLE; NEITHER REAL-ONES NOR FAUX - BECAUSE ALSO THOSE-ONES COULD BE TAKEN FOR REAL!!!

Posted by: Licorne | January 9, 2008 12:38 PM

By the way there's a great article about it on Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,320932,00.html

Posted by: Mark | January 9, 2008 01:13 PM

I think this was the right decision. She is wrong to wear fur, but given her mental condition I believe any efforts against her decision would be fruitless right now. It's better to direct our energy and attention towards people who are well able to listen to common sense!!!

Posted by: Natalie | January 9, 2008 01:49 PM

I have to agree with my fellow Animal Rights people. "You made the wrong choice". Yes I maybe one of the few who don't think she has a mental problems! She just needs/wants more attention!!

Posted by: Carla | January 9, 2008 01:51 PM

she should still be on the list, her being unwell is no excuse for her to wear fur.

Posted by: Jenny | January 9, 2008 04:02 PM

DON'T TAKE HER OFF THE LIST! She's still part criminal for wearing and accepting fur!

So we feel bad for her? but not for the animals? Give her a break? Sure y not, but that wouldn't mean the animals will be given a break themselves...

Posted by: Ross | January 9, 2008 04:25 PM

Very humane decision.
After all, people are also animals, and humane treatment is what PETA is about.
Never kick a dog - and never kick a person when they are down.
The road to real change comes from within - perhaps Britney will learn something from the empathy that is directed her way during her own difficult times, and realize that animals also have feelings.

Posted by: PeaceSurge | January 9, 2008 05:39 PM

There is NO excuse for wearing fur.

Posted by: Stevie | January 9, 2008 07:43 PM

There is NO excuse for wearing fur.

Posted by: Stevie | January 9, 2008 07:45 PM

Awww poor Britney. As someone said already, she hasn't and isn't suffering like the animals she's buying and wearing. I think PETA knows what they're doing so whatever choice they make, I agree but I don't see her life problems as an excuse to continue to wear fur especially if she has been exposed to the the horrific cruelty of the industry. There is NO excuse for someone still wearing fur!

Posted by: Lisa | January 10, 2008 12:23 AM

I had good impression on Britney.
But...

Posted by: Sukeerthi G | January 10, 2008 06:16 AM

Elaine,

AMEN for your comment! Watching today's "celebrity news" any alien visiting Earth would think that men are just saints and that only girls and women drink and drive, mistreat animals, etc etc. There is a vehemently denied SEXISM pervading our entire culture. Blessings to you for your comment.

On another note, I apologize for cursing like a sailor in my previous comment. I was horrified when I read it later. Won't happen again.

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | January 10, 2008 07:37 PM

Nooooooooooooooooo !

Please, we must leave her on.

Choices, choices, choices !

Posted by: Eva | January 10, 2008 08:47 PM

Please, This is the last thing she needs a break on,THATS HER PROBLEM---SHE NEEDS NO--- I SAID NO BREAKS.Cant believe you even consider giving her a break,but I will forgive you--you do so much else right.
Leisa Clark

Posted by: leisa clark | January 11, 2008 04:28 PM

That moron x husband of Brits also wears fur coats.
I saw a picture of that piece of crap in Vegas.
Yuck!

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter for Animals | January 11, 2008 05:30 PM

This was a smart move. It's unfortunate what has happened in her life and hopefully people will leave her alone so she can get help and be able to take care of herself and her kids (maybe leave LA for awhile would be a good start). She doesn't seem to know what she's doing now, and any attempts to convince her about the cruelty of fur would be futile. Plus, animal rights activists are often said to care more about animals than people so it's good that PETA made this act of compassion. Once she's been treated and has her life back in order, she may be willing to listen to PETA bc she knows they were willing to give her a break when she needed one. We knows she loves animals (although she's wrong to buy them at the pet stores) so maybe she can even be convinced to put her celebrity to work supporting a campaign - like rescuing dogs from shelters and not supporting puppy mills by buying them at the pet stores! She's had her kids taken away, but has anyone checked to see how the dogs are doing???

Posted by: ann | January 12, 2008 11:14 AM

Licorne:
In addition to the reasons you listed for not wearing even faux fur, a lot of "faux" fur from China is actually German Shepard. Or fuzzy Chow. I don't have a moral issue with faux fur, but I hate the very thought that I could be perceived as someone who wears fur so I don't wear it.

As for Britney being on The List or not, it's good to show compassion, but I doubt that wearing fur is part of her mental illness. Still, I guess it's not so bad to give someone a chance.

Posted by: Susannah S | January 12, 2008 02:07 PM

I just can't believe that we're actually giving any more time to the media whore that she is.

Who cares? Why doesn't PETA go after all the designers who still use fur? Instead of one, obviously, not right in the head, person?

Posted by: Kristina | January 12, 2008 06:15 PM

"DON'T TAKE HER OFF THE LIST! She's still part criminal for wearing and accepting fur!"

Sorry kiddo, but buying and wearing fur is legal. The criminals are those property destroying vandals that toss paint on people wearing it.

Posted by: John | January 13, 2008 07:05 PM

right choice,
she's not mentally stable at the moment, however hopefully when she is, she'll stop wearing animals on her back.

Posted by: william | January 15, 2008 04:58 AM

why would you leave her off? animals are dying so she can wear thair skin and you're letting her off because she 's going through a bad point in her life? i don't think so. she's depressed, so it's okay if she wears dead animals. no. put her on PLEEASE!!

--Peace and Love

Posted by: Kailey | January 15, 2008 10:26 AM

Give Britney a break. This girl has been through enough. We have lots of other celebs to beat up this year. Give her a year in rehab and then we'll go after her.

The poor thing has NO ONE to defend her. Her lousy boyfriend is married to another woman and about to sell their private pics to the tabloids. Her mother only wants her money and her ex-husband just wants her kids for the money.

GIVE HER A BREAK! I know she loves animals, so lets continue to try and plead with her and give her some space that she desperately needs.

Let's show her that PETA and it's members can be compassionate, not hateful like the papparazzi and her family and her ex-husband, fans and attorneys. For goodness sake, this girl needs a real friend because she sure doesn't have one!

Posted by: Susan | January 15, 2008 11:42 AM

I dont care how much of a freak show she is-- She was still wearing fur!!!

Posted by: Jenn M | January 15, 2008 07:13 PM

Come on people! There has to be a better cause to rally against in the name of animal rights than Britney Spears!

Really, I give her about four more months until she ODs.

Posted by: Kristina | January 15, 2008 10:49 PM

I doubt very much that Britney is unbalanced to the degree that she is unaware of the suffering the animals had to endure to provide her with fur coats. She needs to be accountable for her decisions. A life of self-indulgence has its consequences and Britney should go back on the list--for the sake of the animals whose death she supported by wearing their skins.

Posted by: Jean | January 18, 2008 11:29 AM

Hmm lets see,now i would not cut her any slack at all for the simple fact is she has so so much growing up to do.I do not think she is a fit mother now nor never.I had my first child when i was 18yrs old and held 3 jobs to take care of her now thats taken responsability! Her fashion choice stinks as well lets see what if someone took her animals and skinned them to make a jacket would she like that...My guess would be NO!

Posted by: Shellie | March 5, 2008 01:39 AM