Free speech/expression and CVS.

Does CVS have an obligation to provide access to Every magazine that's published

or just the ones they provided the month before?

I linked it here in the OP.

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

No it doesn't. But it can't line-item veto every single issue of every single magazine that it does sell.

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

CVS, Walgreens, and some other outlets are refusing to sell the Rolling Stone magazine that features Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover.

Since I hate the cover, I'm happy with this decision.

I support the businesses and people who boycott the issue.

Some people take offense to this.

Among claims,1. if I support the boycott, my support of free speech is hypocritical. 2. CVS has a moral obligation to carry the issue.

I read an article in Alias's facebook page, and agreed with it until the last paragraph. The article seemed to jump from a defense for RS to an weird accusation against those who don't agree.

This final paragraph is off the mark. They seemed to have coined a new phrase that sounds "green" and "organic," and "sustainable," so it's cool and patriotic to spend some money on a Rolling Stone. Really, you must support Rolling Stone - and those people who won't - well, they're just unpatriotic and against Freedom of Speech.

Paragraph

Yet the vitriol and closed-mindedness of the Web response to the Rolling Stone cover, before anyone had the chance to read the article itself, is an example of two of the ugly public outcomes of terrorism: hostility toward free expression, and to the collection and examination of factual evidence; and a kind of culture-wide self-censorship encouraged by tragedy, in which certain responses are deemed correct and anything else is dismissed as tasteless or out of bounds. The victims of the Boston Marathon bombing deserve our attention, and will continue to teach us about perseverance and the best parts of our common nature. But the dark stories of the bombing need to be told, too. And we need to hear them.

Link: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/07/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-rolling-stone-cover-controversy.html

I don't expect many to have my opinion - but I would like honest opinions.
Can you be a proponent of freedom of speech and expression - and support a boycott?

Does CVS or any other retail outlet have a moral obligation to Rolling Stone in this instance?

Thanks.

Freedom of speech does not include a concomitant duty to listen.
Freedom of the press does not impose any duty on me to read the press.

I do not accept the vu of stores being places of "public accommodation"

tho I know that judicial opinion of the 1900s and since
does not support my love of freedom. I cling to the vu of the Founders.

Freedom of speech does not include a concomitant duty to listen.
Freedom of the press does not impose any duty on me to read the press.

Nobody is arguing that it does.

I do not accept the vu of stores being places of "public accommodation"

Now that is a genuine point of disagreement.

tho I know that judicial opinion of the 1900s and since
does not support my love of freedom. I cling to the vu of the Founders.

And what view would that be?

The view that it's okay to own slaves?
The view that a slave counts as three-fifths of a human being?

The view that Abigail Adams must have been kidding when she demanded
that her husband John stand up for a woman's right to vote?

The view that hanging men for consensual sex with other men is appropriate?

The view that Native Americans held no rights to the land they'd been living on for centuries and millennia?

You're really adept at wriggling out of the tight squeezes, aren't you, Dave?
Saying that you do not oppose the 13th or the 19th Amendment
to the Constitution is just muddying the waters. It wasn't the so-
called "Founding Fathers" who wrote and approved those Amendments.

The very fact that such amendments were deemed to be necessary shows that by the mid-19th Century many of the early notions of the founding fathers had come to be viewed as inapplicable in a democratic society. I wonder, by the end of the 21st century, how many more will have come under closer scrutiny.

And you are disingenuous as hell when you say that what you were talking about was the founding fathers' perceived distrust of a strong government. [Emphasis mine.] Nowhere in your OP do you make this distinction clear.

Reading your screed, it is quite natural that Thomas and everyone else would assume that you mean that you heartily approve of everything that the founding fathers put into that document we call the Constitution.

{Again, emphasis mine.] So, if you truly believe in the sanctity and inviolate immutability of the Constution as written,
why then you perforce must be in favor of slavery and opposed to the notion of election of U.S. Senaors by popular vote.

Your attempt to weasel out of those views is logically pathetic, at best.

I don't buy that but am not equipped to argue.

ou're really adept at wriggling out of the tight squeezes, aren't you, Dave? Saying that you do not oppose the 13th or the 19th Amendment to the Constitution is just muddying the waters. It wasn't the so-called "Founding Fathers" who wrote and approved those Amendments

Finally, definitions of pronography have been been determined to be based on community standards--so what constitutes pron could well be considered a viewpoint.