Free speech/expression and CVS.

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

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.

No, they are taking away someone's choice to buy that magazine at CVS stores. There action doesn't prevent people from obtaining the magazine, a point i made earlier.

*********************************************************

Osso mentioned that CVS is eastern--that is true, although it has grown to be the largest pharamacy chain int the U.S. It was founded in Lowell, Massachusetts, although the corporation was chartered in Delaware, and its home offices are in Rhode Island. This may well just be a cynical move to increase loyalty in its customer base and to expand its customer base in its home market, the northeast.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

There are a great many things which you are not aware of--one of those is why this comes up in a conversation between Thomas and me, which you were either unable to follow, or too lazy to follow.

Idiot.

1 Reply

Exactly!

Quote:

"I don't think anybody truly believes this will hurt Rolling Stone," said Linda Ruth, a magazine publishing consultant with PSCS in New Hampshire.

"Rolling Stone knew going in they would get kicked out by retailers," she said. "What they get here is bigger than what they lose."

Rolling Stone, like most U.S. magazines, is subscription-driven. According to ABC (Audit Bureau of Circulations), its newsstand sales are just 75,000 out of a total circulation of over 1.4 million last year.

"Newsstand sales are only a tiny proportion. But Rolling Stone also got more publicity than money can buy," Husni said, suggesting the controversy could help the magazine add more sales.

"They probably won't even notice this (boycott)," said Ryan Chittum, who covers business stories for the Columbia Journalism Review. "There may be a few cancellations but no big deal."

Husni also said there was a misconception that Rolling Stone is only about music and popular culture. "Rolling Stone is one of the few magazines still publishing in-depth and long-form investigative articles in the U.S.Source

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

There are a great many things which you are not aware of--one of those is why this comes up in a conversation between Thomas and me, which you were either unable to follow, or too lazy to follow.

Idiot.

My my how nasty are you having your period perhaps?.... Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

are you having your period perhaps?....

"Having the painters in", as we say.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
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

Sorry but the constitution were passed by the states under the promise that a bill of rights would be but forward at once.

A large numbers of the important founding fathers such as Adam and Hamilton and Jefferson was indeed involved in the matter of the ten amendments.

Short civics lesson: neither the 13th nor the 19th Amendment is a part of the so-called Bill of Rights. Only the first 10 amendments form that canon. Adams and Jefferson and Hamilton were all long dead andgone by the time the 13 Amendment, prohibiting involuntary servitude, was voted on.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas, your analogies are so off.
The bartender analogy refuses to serve a customer. CVS doesn't refuse to serve customers.
CVS has a vendor relationship with RS - they have a contract to arbitrate how they treat each other.
The bartender sells chips at the bar. The chip vendor changes the packaging. Customers complain. The bartender says to the vendor, "I don't like your chip bag, neither do my customers, find another place to sell them."

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Lash wrote:

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

Thomas wrote:

You didn't ask me, but I'll answer anyway. To me it wouldn't make a difference. It's the same as when a barkeeper refuses to serve me because I'm an atheist. That's discrimination, and it's illegal. What difference does it make that I can get a beer in some other pub? None. It shouldn't make a difference in this case, either.

No one asked me either, but I will address Tom 's response.
In my impassioned love of very near absolute freedom of laissez faire
free enterprize, I value and treasure the olde English common law
concept that a contract (of sale, in this case) can arise from
a meeting of the minds, offer & acceptance in an environment
of freedom from the interference of government.

I deem it abhorrent to American freedom that a merchant,
i.e., a free American in my vu of the rightness of things
(to which, as aforesaid, judicial opinion has not always been loyal)
is legally required to post a permission slip
to do business from a municipal government on his wall.
Each citizen (i.e., all merchants and all customers)
shud approach one another in an aura of (near) pure autonomy
to deal with one another on any terms that thay like
or on no terms at all, opting not to contract with one another.
(Stop to think of it, that is [presumably] admirable in the
unlawful drug market: freedom from government interference,
unless the damned thing [government] finds out.
I have no actual personal experience with this.)

No citizen shud deal with any other citizen unless that is what
each of them chooses to do. To my mind, being coerced
and extorted by government to sell something it deems anathema
to its customers is very un-American and it shud not happen.

For instance: I avidly support freedom to use birth control.
A sincerely Catholic merchant shud not be intimidated
by government to sell publications addressing that topic,
against his will, nor birth control devices themselves,
whether his customers can get them elsewhere or not.
The merchant is not their slave.
For years, decades and centuries, I have been passionate
in my support of absolute freedom of the abortion of gestation.
If a magazine with an article concerning abortion (an effective
means of birth control, right?) is offered to the said merchant
for sale in his store, he is within his moral rights to reject it.
I support the right to bear arms; I support the right of any merchant
not to sell guns if he does not wanna sell them.
(Maybe he can rent them.)

I wish that we had a lot more freedom in current American society.
It has been eroded.
If I had the ability, I 'd return the freedom of the late 18OOs
(for the most part) to our enjoyment now.

I resent government and its intrusion upon us.

David

0 Replies

@Lash,

Yup. And there are plenty of bars that don't carry some specific brands of firewater. I can't imagine anyone saying, "What? You refuse to carry Tanqueray Gin? I'll sue." I may not go that bar any more but I sure as hell won't get my BVDs in a twist over being discriminated against.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Glad you found someone who you trusted to clear it up for you.

I think it is bizarre that you think CVS has any moral / ethical obligation to the public, but maybe in time, you'll develop a more realistic perspective. Meanwhile, I guess Robert had better stop this thumbs down / ignore bullshit, because this is definitely a public accommodation and his behavior as manager of this public accommodation is clearly unconstitutional. I mean, he has methods of making unpopular opinions disappear!! My civil rights to free speech are being violated. Good God, what about JTT!! He's obviously representing some extreme minority from some sad, oppressed place. What about his rights to free speech?

(Get me a lawyer) (sigh)

Not.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Quote:

Short civics lesson: neither the 13th nor the 19th Amendment is a part of the so-called Bill of Rights. Only the first 10 amendments form that canon. Adams and Jefferson and Hamilton were all long dead andgone by the time the 13 Amendment, prohibiting involuntary servitude, was voted on.

True and who had stated otherwise?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Short civics lesson: neither the 13th nor the 19th Amendment is a part of the so-called Bill of Rights. Only the first 10 amendments form that canon. Adams and Jefferson and Hamilton were all long dead andgone by the time the 13 Amendment, prohibiting involuntary servitude, was voted on.

True and who had stated otherwise?

You ever read your own posts? David mentions the 13th and 19th amendments and you reply with a statement about the Bill of Rights. YOU had apparentlystated otherwise.

2 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Quote:

You ever read your own posts? David mentions the 13th and 19th amendments and you reply with a statement about the Bill of Rights. YOU had apparentlystated otherwise.

Sorry but I was clearly not referencing to anything but the first ten amendments known as the bill of rights.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Right. Or it possibly might be non-cynical, due to local sensibility, including at the home office, re the boston bombing, or, I think likely, a combo of sensibility and marketing.

0 Replies

On Rolling Stone, I haven't read them in many years but I remember thinking them capable of good writing - which involves capable thinking - and I'm leaning more toward what I said before, that the cover may be ironic usage of a now cult-y photo.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Interesting discussion. I'm somewhat in Thomas's camp. If you don't want to buy the issue fine, although I don't really see what the issue is. I'm less enthused about CVS deciding what reading material I am able to buy. It is one of the largest pharmacies in the country and I really don't need it to censor what I have available to read, but it certainly is not illegal and there are plenty of other outlets so it's not like my choices have been severely impacted. I do think that CVS is being really hypocritical though. While I haven't stopped in, I think it likely that CVS sells porn. I'm sure it sells Hollywood tabloids that make their money selling lies and half-truths along with intrusive pictures. There are probably a good number of other magazines of questionable worth on their shelves but they want to censor a magazine with a story they've never read because the don't like the cover. Talk about judging a book by its cover...

1 Reply

@Lash,

CVS, Walgreens and any other business do not have a moral obligation.
They are a business and should conduct themselves to make a profit. And that is precisely what they are doing. I am sure their decision not to have this magazine in their stores it is a business decision. They realize or have made the business decision that most of their customers will find this cover offensive so they announce they will not sell RS magazine to their customers.

They are not making a claim about holding back freedom of the press - they are not telling RS not to publish this magazine, they are making a business decision they feel is in the best interest for their profits by not offending their customers.

Funny thing - when I first heard about this cover (and I work a block from the Marathon finish so this something close to me) - it really bothered me. That lunchtime break I was going to CVS to pick up a few items. At that time I did not realize the magazine was not yet in news stands. I had already determined (now granted I am one person) that if they had that magazine displayed I was going to leave and not buy anything in that store. I also tend to go to this particular grocery store. I had already determined that I was not going to shop there if they had the magazine and I planned on telling a manager my thoughts (well since then - they have advertised they are not selling it).

Many people in this area feel this way - so it does seem like a smart businesses decision not to sell the magazine.

1 Reply

@contrex,

Yes they have had it - but I would have supported not supporting such a move as well.

It is not the article - did you see the picture - it makes the terrorist look like a rock star. It is obvious RS is trying for the shock factor which will get some to buy.

I find it offensive to protray a terrorist as a rock star/someone to idolize. And I support freedom of the press. Same as I support not buying something I find offensive and I support businesses that have the pulse on their customers and prefer not to display material that is offensive to their customers. Businesses do this all the time they refuse to sell certain items for similar reasons.

0 Replies

@Linkat,

So not selling a magazine that a percent of their customers would like to buy is a business decision?

Strange business decision in allowing one group of customers to stop another group of customers from buying a magazine they wish to buy from them.

I have no problem with someone not buying a magazine that content they are unhappy about but I do have a problem with them and a business interfering with the ability of others from buying the magazine if they care to do so.

I think I am going to move my drug business from them, a few thousands dollars a year at least and write a note over why I am doing so to them .

1 Reply

@BillRM,

You do not live in Boston - these businesses are New England based and most people I live around feel this way.

It isn't that they aren't going to buy the magazine - it is that they will not buy anything in that business while it is on display. Read some of Boston.com.

And by the way the CVS was going to was closed due to Marathan bombing during that time. It would have been completely horrible and sick to have that picture displayed.

You cannot understand possibly understand the pulse in this area. This is very offensive - you did not see the ambulances lined up - the people being transported to them. It is very personal here and still very fresh in our minds.

5 Replies

Free speech/expression and CVS.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know