Free speech/expression and CVS.

Thanks, Linkat!

0 Replies

@Linkat,

Quote:

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

However they are enabling others to interfere with what I can buy in their stores in Florida.

As I said, I have nothing against people no longer reading Rolling Stone over this issue even if it just a photo and no one know yet what the article will or will not be.

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.

BillRM wrote:

True and who had stated otherwise?

Lustig Andrei wrote:

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 apparently stated otherwise.

I dissent, Andy.
People have the right to comment upon the Bill of Rights
regardless of whether I mention other and different amendments.

David

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Then you have the freedom to tell your local CVS you won't shop there as a result - that is what freedom is about.

1 Reply

@Linkat,

Linkat wrote:

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.

How would you feel if the magazine was sold but kept behind the counter or displayed with a cover over it like some porn magazines and glamour magazines?

1 Reply

@Linkat,

Quote:

Then you have the freedom to tell your local CVS you won't shop there as a result - that is what freedom is about.

You right and I am looking forward to doing so however I do not feel that I have a moral right to tell others what they can buy and where they can buy it.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

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.

Then you were posting a total non sequitur. But inasmuch as you started your post with "Sorry but" it is apparent that you were referencing the ongoing conversation as though it had had something to do with the Bill of Rights. Stop trying to defend a defenseless and dumb post and move on, Bill.

0 Replies

@engineer,

That probably would not bother me so much. I am not really sure.

I do know that often times stores like Target or Walmart will not sell certain music/books, etc. that is offensive to the point of crossing the line. They want that family imagine. This usually doesn't bring up so much controversory as this cover has. I think in part because the attack was not so long ago.

I fully support and understand the freedom of the press, but there is a point where things cross the line. I also understand RS tries to be edgy, but selling this and seeing this picture steps from the actual bombing really is poor taste and hurtful.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

" however I do not feel that I have a moral right to tell others what they can buy and where they can buy it"

I agree - and I honestly think that these stores feel they will lose customers - I mean can a large chain really have morality? They are trying to maintain an imagine - right or wrong whether it hurts business or not.

But a business should be able to decide what it wants to sell for any reason. That is what a free economy is about.

1 Reply

@Linkat,

I agree completely, Linkat.

0 Replies

Very interesting (long) read from a native Bostonian who lived in Chechnya for a decade and now works for RS.

Long but interesting article.

2 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

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...

Thay don't wanna "CENSOR"
the story (not prevent it from being printed), but thay wish to
avoid being COMPLICIT in the propagation of those abhorrent ideas, as thay judge them to be.

David

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

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,

I did notice the word "Not" at the end of this. But your post shows you're still not getting the crucial distinction between empowering people in their choice to ignore each other, and sabotaging their choice to read each other when that's what they want.

When Robert introduced the "ignore" feature on A2K, I applauded him for it. It made me happy. But that's totally different from, for example, A2K advertising a moderation policy of selectively pulling OmSigDavid's gushing pro-Zimmerman posts, "out of respect for Trayvon Martin and the Black community". Personally, I found David's posts on this topic ill-conceived and mildly embarrassing. Still, I would be outraged if A2K had pulled them. A2K would have been messing with people who want to read OmSigDavid's posts. If it ever came to this, I would be righteously angry at Craven and the A2K moderators, and it would be the end of my personal friendship with Jespah. I'm glad it will never happen.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Wow.

If Rolling Stone decided to publish an edition with a photo of a woman having sexual intercourse with a donkey and CVS decide not to sell it in their stores they would be guilty of violating the Civil-Rights Act and be "morally tainted" and "legally iffy?"

I don't think I can agree with you.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Unless CVS is considered an arm of the government, I don't think free speech is an issue for them in terms of what they choose to sell.

Do you think that you have a legal obligation to allow anyone to say anything within your home? If not (and I hope you're answer is "No") why does CVS have to allow anything to be said or written in their stores?

I can understand someone's disappointment with CVS not stocking this edition of the Rolling Stone, but that's a far cry from them being guilty of a Civil Rights crime or violating free speech rights.

Is this edition not being sold in all of their stores or only those stores in the Boston area?

If they haven't banned the sale in all of their stores it seems like the Boston ban is not much more than a marketing effort.

Two commercial enterprises trying to maximize profits.

1 Reply

@DoctorGotz,

The legal part of my argument was mistaken, and I conceded it two pages ago. But by all means, don't let this stop you from beating this dead horse a couple more times.

1 Reply

Tough for a Newbie to come into a discussion that has gone on this long.

I hope I haven't missed anyone's point in my replies.

I don't think the CVS ban is based on exclusively noble intentions, but for whatever reasons they banned the Rolling Stone issue with the Boston Bomber's photos on the cover I don't believe it's a violation of the right to free speech.

Rolling Stone can publish whatever they want. Retailers can decline to sell what RS wants to publish.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Sorry Thomas. I guess I didn't keep up with all of your comments.

1 Reply

@JPB,

Thanks, that's on my desktop now.

0 Replies

@JPB,

Thank you for the link. Worthwhile read but I suspect as many posters will read it as will read the RS they're objecting to.

1 Reply

Free speech/expression and CVS.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know