Free speech/expression and CVS.

@Ragman,

I'm not sure.

This may be a poster boy against soft eyes.

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

CVS's refusal to sell this Rolling-Stone issue constitutes viewpoint discrimination, which is morally tainted and legally at least iffy.

I cannot at all agree with this. "Viewpoint discrimination" is meaningless phrase at best, and smack's of the political rectitude gestapo at worst. I'd be interested to hear your argument for any illegality. Stores are not, for example, ever required by any laws of which i know to sell magazines that they consider pornographic.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

He has eyes sort of like a cocker spaniel I once saw. Same hair-do, too

0 Replies

@Thomas,

I always listen to him, if not agree, thank you.
Hope he is well, etc.

Thx re looking at RS website link.

0 Replies

@Lash,

For myself I have no problem with anyone boycotting this magazine issue my problem started when it interfere with others who do not feel the same from being able to purchase the magazine.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Is this any different from pharmacies refusing to sell birth control? seems like it's the same issue.

I can understand not buying the magazine. I can't get behind CVS not stocking the mag as it would normally.

3 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

"Viewpoint discrimination" is meaningless phrase at best,

Meaningless or not, it does have teeth. The Supreme Court has found universities and cities guilty of it, and has made them change their conduct. The fuzzy part of my argument is about how much wiggle room for viewpoint discrimination organizations have when they are public accommodations, but not government agencies.

Setanta wrote:

Stores are not, for example, ever required by any laws of which i know to sell magazines that they consider pornographic.

That's not about viewpoints, though. But if CVS did sell pornography in general, yet withheld this month's Playboy because there's a Black girl on its cover and someone at CVS doesn't like Black girls, I'm fairly confident that Playboy would have a case. But you're right: I'm not a civil-rights lawyer. I'd be happy to defer to someone who has actually studied the matter.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

That's not about viewpoints, though. But if CVS did sell pornography in general, yet withheld this month's Playboy because there's a Black girl on its cover and someone at CVS doesn't like Black girls, I'm fairly confident that Playboy would have a case. But you're right: I'm not a civil-rights lawyer. I'd be happy to defer to someone who has actually studied the matter.

this is obviously my take on it as well (other than happily deferring Mr. Green

)

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Is this any different from pharmacies refusing to sell birth control? seems like it's the same issue.

The freedom of speech and the press are civil rights explicitly protected by the constitution. The freedom to take birth control is not. So no, I don't think it's the same issue.

ehBeth wrote:

I can understand not buying the magazine. I can't get behind CVS not stocking the mag as it would normally.

Agreed on both points.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

The freedom to take birth control is not.

it's the picking and choosing of what will be stocked based on the "morals" of the shopkeeper that I think is the same - it's definitely how things roll up here

0 Replies

I might buy it using my nook but then against it might be a good idea to picked up a hard copy as a collector item.

Hate the idea of giving mass murders a platform to express their worldviews but that is not my understanding of what the rolling stone is doing and the problem is with the cover picture.

I wonder if it might not be too last to paste devil horns and the number 666 on the picture.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

ha! funny
like it

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

A very eastern company.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

A very eastern company.

0 Replies

@contrex,

Contrex, thanks for responding - the problem for a lot of people of my generation is that the cover of the Rolling Stone has been almost exclusively for rock stars. I do see your Manson cover - but Manson didn't get the soft-light retouching like he's David Cassidy. I don't pretend to have any moral high ground. I just don't like it. So I speak against it. So I'm glad some retailers won't sell it.

I don't think this has ANYTHING to do with freedom of speech. No one tried to jail a writer or shut down a printing press.

2 Replies

I've been reading a similar discussion at another site. I'm not a RS subscriber or regular reader. I've seen the cover more on FB in the past 24 hours than I ever would have seen it if the people who are all up in arms about it hadn't posted it.

Apparently, RS hasn't been a music magazine for years. Most(?) of the people who are upset about it didn't read the article - they simply reacted to the cover. Also, according to what I'm reading elsewhere, this Exact Same Picture has been published in other journals, papers, media without generating a bit of controversy.

If it's just because RS "used" to be a music mag then I think it's people looking for a reason to be upset about something. Especially if those same people weren't equally upset when the same picture was published by other media outlets. And, certainly, if they think RS is a focused on being a music magazine.

1 Reply

@JPB,

music magazine?

(agreeing)

0 Replies

@Ragman,

Well, I agree with you. They aren't required to have ethics or morals. I do think the cover was calculated with sales in mind - something else they have a right to do. They appeal to the kids his age - and I'm sure they were targeting kids his age, including the teeny-boppers who reportedly are forming a harem for him.

I'm just hoping that they lose more form my generation than they gain from the bomber's. Because part of the calculation was discarding consideration of the lives he ended (the morals and ethics we said they didn't have to possess or act on) in pursuit of sales. So, they made a choice - and I think it is just as acceptable for me to make one.

I appreciate your comment.

1 Reply

@Ragman,

I was surprised about Khomeini, too, and some other notably oppressive despots who've been named to seemingly glamorous titles, but when they reiterated their criteria - (ie - who made the biggest power move this year) - I didn't see it as negative or glorification.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Would you say someone who supports boycotts of RS is against freedom of speech or expression?

3 Replies

Free speech/expression and CVS.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know