by MPD
Categories: Fashion
Tags: , , .


Fur-wearers beware! The latest news on the celebrity activism circuit is that Sharon Stone and the Olsen twins have seen their stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame defaced with the words “Fur Hag” by anti-fur protesters.

Both the twins and Stone are frequent fur-wearers and have been subject to various protests and public demonstrations over the years from those who disagree with their cruel fashion sense.

While I’m never shy about my stance on fur, I am 100 percent against any and all acts of vandalism or destruction in the name of a peaceful goal like animal-rights. Personally I see nothing wrong with protests, but believe acts of vandalism to not only be counter-productive to our mission, but highly ineffective. Hey, but that’s just me!

Do YOU support those unnamed vandals who so daringly defaced the stars of Mary Kate, Ashley and Sharon? Chime in and share your thoughts!!

  • John

    Fur-wearing “stars” believe they are superior to everyone and everything. Stone and the twins needed to be brought down a notch.

  • Jen Hamilton

    Call them what they are. I as long as it is not violence against a person I am for it.

  • Erin

    I would never do it personally but agree with the folks above. It’s not like they hurt ole Sharon or the two Droll twins…

  • herwin

    dont let us pull out our own teeth. sometimes these more nasty things like “adjusting” Hollywood Stars are a reminder that its about a serious topic.

  • The Discerning Brute

    Agreed. As an activist, it is really important to distinguish between “violence” and “vandalism”. If the laws are set up to protect those in power (the rich) then most activism will always be illegal. Subverting a symbol like a Hollywood star is no big deal in comparison to converting 40 living animals into a coat.

  • parrish

    Right. So it might not be a huge deal, but is it effective? Is something like this really effective activism capable of producing long-term, thoughtful reform? I’m not really sure. It seems counter-productive to me.

  • Elaine Vigneault

    I wouldn’t do it (vandalism, that is), but I don’t have a huge problem with it, particularly since it’s in a public space.

    I don’t think it’s counter-productive, either. I think it’s more likely neutral or even positive. But… to be fair, we’d have to do a long-term sociological study to find that out.

  • VeggieTart

    Violence and vandalism will only invalidate our message, as it will tar all activists with the “nutty” brush.

  • herwin

    If they smashed the stars with sledgehammers, yeah, i could agree with using the term “vandalism”, but hey, this is just leaving the words FUR HAG at a public place. I bet by now its all cleaned and no permanent damage.
    And bringing up the word “violence” in this topic, i dont feel good about it. It feels like criminilazing non- violent people who make a powerfull statement in a form that some people happen to dissagree with. (what i fully understand, i wouldnt do it also..)
    but its one step away from calling them Eco Terrorists.
    how about protesters disrupting a fur fashion show ?
    throwing fake blood (red paint) on fur shop windows ? (Peta did it at Bluberry shop..)

    should we become “peafeful” and only have protest with “please dont kill animals” signs ? DUH.

  • Antonio Pasolini

    I don’t think this would qualify as vandalism, therefore it’s okay. Hollywood vandalizes the world with its trash so it’s a case of reciprocity here.

  • Stephanie

    I agree with Antonio, lol.

    I pretty much agree with everyone one this. If i was ever in Hollywood and myself proly resist putting an “I’m an asshole. I wear fur” sticker on their star.

  • ARPhilo

    I think it’s great. Do it with chalk if you’re concerned about property destruction. Chalk is erasable.

    It’s good for people to see that fur is not glamorous and even if you are famous, there will be consequences for wearing it.

  • Rainbow Warrior

    there is just one thing to be called vandalism: the brutal killing of innocent animals for to steal their fur!

  • jradz

    It’s not like Sharon Stone and the Olson Twins deserve stars in the first place.

  • Pingback: Latest Dish! | Celebrity Baby Scoop()

  • Erin

    I love reading threads like this. I love you EcoRazzi readers. :)

    The olsen twins suck. A product of society – as they were forced into acting – I won’t even go off on their LOSER parents who should be ashamed ..


  • Erin

    Oh and Sharon stone is just as bad. if not worse.

    she’s old enough to know better.

  • Karen

    100% for what they did!

  • Pingback: Fur-Loving Aretha Franklin’s Hollywood Star Defaced // Archives // :: the latest in green gossip()

  • Carly

    Regardless of who committed the vandalism, this is not the way to change minds about animal rights. I think it’s more of a publicity stunt rather than a concrete attempt at changing people’s perspectives. I wrote a short piece about this story, check it out at

  • Pingback: GossipUp » Blog Archive » Hollywood Stars Of Olsen Twins And Sharon Stone Vandalized By Fur …()

  • sdsdf

    They just got lucky. Their PARENTS took them to an audition (which they only made cause they didn’t cry when held up, pure dumb luck), they played a baby who had like, 2 lines per episode, that was full house. Then their PARENTS made dualstar and did all the work for them (they were just the face), and the only reason their products sold is because MK and A are good looking, cute twins. they can’t actually act or make clothes, all they do for their clothing line is that they pick out designs. their parents did everything for them, they were just the face, they have no talent and can’t act for shit but they’re popular anyway cause of the little girls that like them cause they’re pretty twins. the olsen twins became billionnaires because they’re twins and because they have business saavy parents