Pamela Anderson's PETA Ad Deemed Too Racy For Hong Kong Airport

HONG KONG (AFP) – An animal rights commercial starring former Playboy centrefold Pamela Anderson, which is banned at some US airports, has been deemed too racy for Hong Kong, one of Asia's busiest aviation hubs.

The advertisement, titled "Cruelty Doesn't Fly", features the scantily-clad former "Baywatch" star as an airport security guard who strips passengers of leather, fur and other skins.

A couple, seen nude from behind, also appears in the video commercial created by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

"Given the groping that you see at security checkpoints and the nudity that you see in body scans we're surprised that our lighthearted ad was deemed too risqué", said Jason Baker, PETA Asia's vice president.

The animal rights group said its ad was vetoed by JCDecaux, the advertising agency responsible for airing videos at Hong Kong's airport.

In a statement, the city's airport authority said the commercial was "considered inappropriate" because it might offend some visitors.

The ad -- which also features comedian Steve-O, a star of the 'Jackass' movie series, and German punk icon Nina Hagen -- is already banned at airports in New York City and Boston, PETA said.

The animal rights group said it still hoping to run the ad in other Asia-Pacific airports, including Tokyo, Seoul and Sydney.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sucks for her and PETA but at least she is doing something since what happened to her career..

KAT VON D!

*Stares at her legs... drools a bit*

You're right, Vee. Yesterday I past by a billboard of this dude wearing nothing but fucking tight ass draws lmao. I think it was for Calvin Klein - dunno. The thing was so bright, you couldn't help but notice the pic even if you didn't want to.

Yeah, she is.

LOL IKR.

Since Pam first burst onto the scene it's been all about her looks, sex and the whole nine. How could this be any different? I say they were just dumb for choosing her for the ad. No harm done, really: she gets her cash, and JCDecaux gets their way with censoring the ad.