Caterina A.J. Parola
Communications Ethics and Law
Prof. De Moya
January 31, 2018
Is PETA’s Communication Ethical in the SeaWorld of Hurt Case?
The fight is on between PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), and the amusement water park SeaWorld, which houses several orcas and other whales, and uses them in water shows to entertain its audience. The animals are kept in small tanks, and appear to be dying a lot earlier than the average death of their species, continuously affected by infection and diseases. PETA states that “animals at SeaWorld are regularly drugged to manage stress-induced aggressive behavior and relieve the endless monotony of swimming in circles” (PETA, 2018, p.1), and considers these practices extremely unethical. For that reason, PETA is fighting for the immediate release of the whales to seaside sanctuaries, where they will be able to enjoy more freedom and independence.
PETA is known for very controversial campaigns: even in this case, their method is not a common one. To get their voice heard, PETA has created an entire website, SeaWorld of Hurt, which denounces the inhumane practices that SeaWorld enforces and that the orcas are subjected to. It is my job to figure out whether PETA’s communication is ethical or unethical.
We can evaluate if PETA’s communication is ethical by using the PRSA Code of Ethics. For example, one of the criteria under the PRSA Provision of Conduct is called the Free Flow of Information. It is a principle that states that “the free flow of accurate and truthful information is essential to serving the public interest”. PETA follows that principle by providing evidence of SeaWorld’s misconduct and by being generally honest and accurate in their articles.
However, the Free Flow of Information also states the importance of contributing to responsible and informed decision making. So does the core principle Disclosure of Information, which states the necessity of building “trust with the public by revealing all information needed for responsible decision making” (PRSA, 2018, p.1). We could argue that PETA does not do that. In fact, the website SeaWorld of Hurt heavily focuses on the wrongdoings of the entertainment corporation, but never directly discloses any communication coming from SeaWorld. Therefore, the public would not be able to make a thoughtful and responsible decision based solely on the communication coming from the SeaWorld of Hurt website. PETA fails to include any “positive” statement from SeaWorld, and when it does, it is only done to twist that information in favor of PETA. For example, when SeaWorld announced that they were going to be ending their orca breeding program because they “always put the health and well-being of the whales first” (SeaWorld, 2016, p.1), PETA reported on the SeaWorld of Hurt website that the company had been “forced” to end its breeding program. “Forced” is a very strong term that, in this case, changes the entire perception of the matter. On top of that, PETA does not mention some of the modifications that SeaWorld has already put in place, such as their new program Orca Encounter, started summer of 2017, which promotes natural encounters of the audience with orcas rather than theatrical shows.
All things considered, it is still hard to say whether PETA passes the “Provision of Conduct test”. From everything that was just discussed, one could say that PETA is pushing out unethical communication. However, in my opinion, all material included in the website is ethical, because even if the information that PETA provides is seriously biased, it is still necessary for responsible decision making. In fact, SeaWorld claims to be doing a lot of good, such as their commitment to rescue and conservation, as well as research funding. While they do partially discuss the controversies that they have taken part in – as they should – their communication focuses on their corporate social responsibility and, more recently, their wildlife protection initiatives. Therefore, I believe PETA’s work is ethical and essential to responsible decision making because it is important to provide truthful information coming from both sides. It is ethical for PETA to have an entire website dedicated to this fight because that way, when users search for information about SeaWorld on the internet, the results will not be limited to the communication that’s endorsed by SeaWorld, but will also include harsh truths provided by PETA.
We can continue our analysis using two of the main values pointed out in the PRSA Code of Ethics: Advocacy and Loyalty. The principle of Advocacy states: “We serve the public interest by acting as responsible advocates for those we represent. We provide a voice in the marketplace of ideas, facts, and viewpoints to aid informed public debate.” (PRSA, 2018, p.1). I believe PETA provides a great example of advocacy with the SeaWorld of Hurt website and, as we have already stated, they do aid informed public debate. They do act as excellent advocate for those they represent, in this case, SeaWorld orcas as well as PETA supporters, and provide a voice for all those that are outraged by SeaWorld’s cruel practices. That ties into the concept of Loyalty. The definition of Loyalty in the PRSA Code of Ethics is: “We are faithful to those we represent, while honoring our obligation to serve the public interest.” (PRSA, 2018, p.1). I do believe that PETA does an amazing job at being faithful to those who they represent. PETA fights as much as possible for the ethical treatment of animals, in this case orcas; however, they do not fully do it for the love of the animals. In fact, since it is a non for profit organization, PETA has to be loyal to its supporters. First of all, because they’re the reason why they exist in the first place: without supporters, there would be no PETA. However, another main reason is the financial one: PETA supporters are the ones that make donations to PETA and finance all of their causes. It is important that PETA acts in their interest, and their interest certainly lies in the ethical treatment of animals.
That being said, another main question lies in the issue of defamation. Should SeaWorld sue PETA for libel? PETA did create a website that surely harms the image of SeaWorld. However, the legal implications of defamation are more complicated than just that. In order to make this analysis as simple as possible, we will apply the criteria listed in the defamation lecture slides, and utilize them as a “checklist” in order for us to decide whether SeaWorld should or should not sue PETA.
The lecture slides state that “before a plaintiff can win a libel suit, they must establish that the offending defamatory statements have been made” (DeMoya, 2018, p.6). In this case, they surely have, but that might not be enough. In fact, it also asks that the statements have been “published to at least one third party by the defendant” (DeMoya, 2018, p.6). I do not necessarily agree that that has happened in this instance. In fact, all of the statements in question have been posted to a website created by PETA, therefore that cannot be considered a third party. The third point that we have to take into consideration asks whether the plaintiff has been identified in the statement: yes, anyone could tell that the defamatory statements were made against SeaWorld, not only because SeaWorld is named many times throughout the website, but also because the public is already familiar with the accusations of misconduct against SeaWorld, illustrated for example in the film-documentary Blackfish (2013).
The fourth point is where everything really changes for SeaWorld: in fact, it asks whether the “actions of the defendant are the true cause of the actual harm” (DeMoya, 2018, p.6). In this case, the actions of PETA are not the true cause of harm: the actions of SeaWorld and their continuous misconduct and abuse towards animals are the real cause of harm. Their actions are proven and well-known, PETA did not make them up, they simply exposed SeaWorld’s practices. As stated in Jackson’s article, “public officials hoping to prevail in a defamation suit must prove not only that a statement was false, but that it was published with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard to its falsity.” (Jackson, 2000, p.497-498). In other words, SeaWorld would need to prove that the statements made by PETA were not true, and that they were purposely published with knowledge of its falsity. As we have seen, although they tend to use strong, shocking words, the statements made by PETA are in fact true. Therefore, I would argue that SeaWorld only has themselves to blame, and should not sue PETA because the chances of losing are high.
Did PETA do this with “the required degree of fault required by the law” (DeMoya, 2018, p.6) – in other words, with malice? Maybe. It is possible that PETA had a secondary goal of damaging the public opinion of SeaWorld, but I would argue that they did it in the interest of their fight for animal rights first and foremost.
With that said, we can argue that it would not be a good idea for SeaWorld to sue PETA for libel according to these criteria. Moreover, it is important to take into consideration that SeaWorld would likely not benefit from the suit: it would generate lots of bad publicity, and would put SeaWorld in the spotlight, target of many media and news outlet who would cover once again the story of animal abuse. On top of that, animal abuse is one of those topics that is so controversial in today’s society that once one is touched by it, it is extremely had to wash away the stain. I would argue that even winning the defamation case would not help in redefining the image of SeaWorld.
In conclusion, SeaWorld should not sue PETA for libel, because the chances of winning are low, and because PETA has provided an overall ethical communication according to multiple principles from the PRSA Code of Ethics. It would be wise of SeaWorld to “keep quiet” and continue their public relations and corporate social responsibility efforts on their website and within their company: that is the best and smartest way to fight the bad publicity and critics coming from PETA.
Grade: A (50/50)
Works Cited
DeMoya, M. (2018) Commercial Speech and Defamation Winter18. [Lecture Slides] Retrieved from d2l.depaul.edu
Jackson, D.M. (2000). The Corporate Defamation Plaintiff in the Era of SLAPPs: Revisiting New York Times v. Sullivan. Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J., 9, 491.
PETA. (n.d.). SeaWorld of Hurt. Retrieved February 1, 2018, from seaworldofhurt.com
Public Relations Society of America Code of Ethics. Retrieved February 1, 2018 Retrieved from: (link)
SeaWorld Entertainment Inc. (2016) SeaWorld Announces Last Generation Of Orcas In Its Care [Press Release] Retrieved from: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/seaworld-announces-last-generation-of-orcas-in-its-care-300237555.html