Free speech/expression and CVS.

@ossobuco,

Thanks for answering.

0 Replies

@Lash,

What?

your generation are facing the bombers?

I don't understand you any more, Lash.

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

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.

But that's the point, they aren't exclusively for rock stars. They have an excellent investigative reporter. From a friend at another forum:

Quote:

On that we agree---it's not a very good music magazine anymore. But on non-music stuff, it's actually pretty good. Writer Matt Taibbi is brilliant, as is Tim Dickinson. Also, the RS article of three years ago was largely responsible for bringing down General Stanley McChrystal.

1 Reply

@Lash,

No.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Thanks for taking the time, Set. These were my thoughts, as well.

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Thank you so much for answering. I agree.

0 Replies

@JPB,

btw, I don't think it has anything to do with freedom of speech either. CVS answers to its stockholders, as does RS. They're both in business to make $$$.

RS is getting more publicity out of this than any other issue in years. They'll be fine it it's not on the shelves of CVS.

1 Reply

@Ragman,

Actually, I'm interested in it, and the decisions about it.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

I just don't like it. So I speak against it.

And for that you have my blessing --- not that you need it or even asked for it. Smile

Lash wrote:

So I'm glad some retailers won't sell it.

Really? Can't you see the distinction here? On the one hand, you exercise your choice not to like it, to speak out against it, and to not buy the issue. That's fine. On the other hand, CVS is taking away this choice from customers who disagree with you and it. You appear to see them both as one thing, to which you refer as "it" in your next sentence. But there's no "it" about it. We can --- and should --- make our own choices without messing with other people making theirs.

CVS wrote:

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.

But a public accommodation has acted in a way that is well-known to chill speech. You, Lash, have applauded its action specifically for its chilling effect on future speech. For correspondents who weren't around, here is the relevant part of our exchange:

Back on Facebook, Thomas wrote:

Yes or no, [Lash]: Are you, or are you not, hoping that CVS's decision will make Rolling Stone think twice about running a cover story like this in the future?

In reply, Lash wrote:

Definitely

To repeat myself: Really? Honest to Benjamin Franklin? You have no idea how a chilling effect works, and how it has "anything to do with freedom of speech"?

2 Replies

@JPB,

I agree. That was my point earlier, as well.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Obviously not.

Oh wait, what does RS mean? Reynold's Aluminum?

Sorry, I'm acronymaggravated.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Surprise, I disagree. My interpretation of your argument posits that the goverment can hold CVS' feet to the fire because CVS owes the people Rolling Stones' opinion.

That is bizarre to me. It's like a dystopian screenplay.

I guess you've read others' comments. Where do you part opinions with them?

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

This is my thought, too. The contracts drive their relationship. This "viewpoint discrimination" is based on upholding the rights of religious or racial/ethnic etc groups who are being publicly discriminated against. I hate to see someone distort it to protect a magazine's profit margin.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

I linked it here in the OP.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Does it make a difference to you that it's for sale elsewhere?

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Apparently not.

1 Reply

@Lash,

I would take serious issue with state or federal government limiting what Rolling Stone could publish. I have no problem at all with any store or chain deciding not to publish a particular photo or viewpoint. Every mass publisher exercises selection (discrimination) in what they choose to publish. So, your candidate for office got drunk and fell off the stage instead of making a winnning speech. One pub chooses not to publish it; another does, and with full color photos.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

You seem to have snipped my entire answer, Thomas. I said "definitely - you and I have to think about what we say and show. RS should, too." That is not shutting them down with censorship.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

I guess you've read others' comments. Where do you part opinions with them?

Without commenting on every single poster, I part opinions with some because they treat CVS as a private agent, and its relationship with Rolling Stone as purely a matter of private contract. But neither CVS nor Rolling Stone are purely private agents. CVS is also a public accommodation under the civil-rights act. Moreover, Rolling Stone is a part of the public, exercising its civil rights to free speech and a free press. That makes viewpoint discrimination impermissible to CVS to an extent that it isn't to private agents like yourself.

Apart from that, I part opinions with other posters who seem to suggest that you don't mess with people's First-Amendment rights unless you "jail a writer or shut down a printing press." It is a well-established point of constitutional caselaw that impermissible chilling effects start at a much more subtle level than this. On the face of it, cutting off a magazine's revenue stream for a specific article it wrote, or a specific cover it ran, rises to the level of a legally-impermissible chilling effect.

At a minimum, though, it easily rises to the level of an ethically-impermissible chilling effect. If free speech and a free press have a moral value to you beyond the legalities --- and it does to me --- it's hard to escape the conclusion that CVS screwed up badly.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

impeding the civil right of Rolling Stone to communicate its viewpoint, and impeding the civil right of its customers to read what Rolling Stones has to say.

Does CVS have an obligation to provide access to Every magazine that's published, or just the ones they provided the month before?

2 Replies

Free speech/expression and CVS.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know