Racked is no longer publishing. Thank you to everyone who read our work over the years. The archives will remain available here; for new stories, head over to Vox.com, where our staff is covering consumer culture for The Goods by Vox. You can also see what we’re up to by signing up here.
We gotta hand it to West Hollywood for their progressiveness, but doesn't a proposed ban on the sale of fur apparel items encroach on our First Amendment rights? (Relax, WE KID, we're not that clueless.) Someone slipped us a copy of a document that will introduced during the next city council meeting on Monday; it's a wide-reaching ban on fur items that supports the WeHo position on animal rights and against animal cruelty. The would-be ordinance defines fur as "any item of personal attire, clothing or garment, which consists or is composed in whole or in part from the pelt or skin or any animal with its hair, wool or fur, including, but not limited to a fox, mink, rabbit, bear, seal or chinchilla." While you might be thinking, "Eww, fur coats are so declasse, anyway," the thing is, the ban would be more than just fur coats and mink stoles: technically, those Phillip Lim goathair pieces of a few years ago and the fantastic fur-trimmed platforms at the Christian Louboutin boutique would qualify as contraband. [Racked Inbox]