Free speech/expression and CVS.

@Ragman,

Quote:

I see nothing to be gained by a boycott, though. Generally they never work and only add more sales and notoriety to the boycotted magazine than might've occurred prior to boycott

Sure I would not have downloaded the magazine issue to my nook but for the drug store chain that I been doing business for years deciding to grant the power to a pressure group to removed that issue.

By the way I am half way through reading the article and so far had seen zero to be annoy over.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

David they had every legal right to allow others to dictate that I will not be allow to buy some merchandise from them that they normally carry and in turn I have every rights to tell them that if the business of those who wish the removal of the merchandise in question is more important to them then my desire to buy the merchandise I am going to stop doing business with them.

This issue is very important when it come to a drug store chain as what drugs or birth control devices and so on will they stop carrying if pressure to do so in the future?

Today it is just an issue of rolling stone magazine
tomorrow the morning after pill or some such,

I see your point, Bill. I avidly support the morning after pill,
but if the franchisee were an ardent Catholic,
I can see where my admiration of that pill might not matter to him.
It seems to me, that the retailer's customers never acquired the right
to compel him, against his Catholic will, to sell that drug. He has freedom too. Agree?

Of course, I 'd never question your right to withdraw
your patronage of his store and to inform him of your reasoning.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

see your point, Bill. I avidly support the morning after pill,
but if the franchisee were an ardent Catholic,
I can see where my admiration of that pill might not matter to him.
It seems to me, that the retailer's customers never acquired the right
to compel him, against his Catholic will, to sell that drug. He has freedom too. Agree?

No you need to have government licenses and government licenses personal to have a drug store and there are conditions to those licenses.

If someone have a faith base problem with selling birth control for example then they should find another business to be in then a drug store and the same apply to religious organizations that had decided to own and run hospitals.

1 Reply

Remember the Chik-fil-a brouhaha. Some people felt very strongly about the personal feelings of the owner regarding a political issue. MANY members of the public made their feelings known on both sides of the issue. In my opinion, each one of them had a right to voice their opinion and act on it with their time and money.

Same thing.

0 Replies

@Ragman,

Ragman wrote:

I see nothing to be gained by a boycott, though. Generally they never work and only add more sales and notoriety to the boycotted magazine than might've occurred prior to boycott.

In this case you're right. More folks will read the article and consider subscribing to RS as a cutting edge investigative magazine than they will lose in sales. I doubt CVS or Walgreens will increase sales vs their other competitors (if they have any), or if they really would have lost sales had they carried the magazine behind the counter.

Generally, however, I think boycotts can be very effective. Just ask Susan G Komen Foundation how many corporate sponsor $$$ they lost because of the sponsor boycotts that occurred after the PP debacle.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Now you're playing a rhetorical game. If i post something here, i immediately do not rush off the post exactly the same thing at FB. In fact, a post in a thread here may well, probably will not have any relevance at FB. The point, which it seems to me that you are attempting evade is that if a post is jerked here, you likely don't any options for seeing it. RS is going to be available in lots and lots of places. Apples and oranges, Boss.

0 Replies

http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/advertisers-react-negatively-rolling-stone-cover-151285
Another article.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Why would you want to have the picture of a guy who is a hero to billions around the world banned from the cover of a mag, Lash?

The US has never been shy about making heroes out of war criminals, showing them napalming people, carpet bombing civilians, ... .

You can, of course, ignore this article, just like you ignore anything that might cause you a wee measure of cognitive dissonance. After all that is the American way and you are a cold blooded American girl.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

DAVID wrote:

I see your point, Bill.
I avidly support the morning after pill,
but if the franchisee were an ardent Catholic,
I can see where my admiration of that pill might not matter to him.
It seems to me, that the retailer's customers never acquired the right
to compel him, against his Catholic will, to sell that drug. He has freedom too. Agree?

BillRM wrote:

No you need to have government licenses and government licenses
personal to have a drug store and there are conditions to those licenses.

I understand what u have in mind.
OK, let 's apply the ax a bit lower on the tree, closer to the root, to wit:
let 's aggrandize the Individual citizen by degrading, demoting and strangling the jurisdiction of government,
so that no license is legally necessary to do business. Instead of extortionate taxes, let 's have the mayor n city
councilmen go begging for handouts to finance government.
That will put control of government back into control of the Individual, where it belongs.

BillRM wrote:

If someone have a faith base problem with selling birth control for example
then they should find another business to be in then a drug store
and the same apply to religious organizations that had decided to own and run hospitals.

This shud not be confined to matters of theology;
e.g., a Democrat merchant shud not be extorted into convaying
information favorable to Republicans, in his store.
It is HIS store; it does not belong to the public.

David

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Hate the idea of giving mass murders a platform to express their worldviews

Oh come off it, Bill. The US has had plenty of platforms for a couple of hundred years and when it comes to mass murderers, the US ranks high.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

I was surprised about Khomeini, too, and some other notably oppressive despots who've been named to seemingly glamorous titles,

George W Bush, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, JFK, R Nixon, B Obama and R Reagan have all been on the cover and they are all war criminals who supported despots, and did much much worse than Khomeini ever did.

There's that world famous America hypocrisy again, Lash.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

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

Absolutely! Americans love to prance about pretending that they are the top in the world for these freedoms but the they are the first to want to ban speech that they don't like or simply don't want to hear.

There's that world famous American hypocrisy again.

0 Replies

@Linkat,

Quote:

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.

Take Boston and multiply it by a thousand, a million, Linkat. Y'all really have got to stop being so close minded. What was it, three dead? Jesus, that's nothing, nothing at all. You want evil, pure evil, don't look to these two young men who sacrificed their lives to try to stop US evil. There are more people killed everyfuckingday by US cluster bombs and mines.

0 Replies

I just got done reading the article in Rolling Stone and found nothing at all that any one is at all likely to have a problem with and in fact it was indeed a well done and interesting piece in my opinion.

So this "ban" was all over a damn picture on the front cover that as others had already pointed out had been used by the NYT right after the bombings.

Silliness indeed.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/20/rolling-stone-cover-poll_n_3625593.html?ncid=txtlnkushpmg00000037&ir=Politics

A poll.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Not a "ban."

ban
/ban/
Verb
Officially or legally prohibit: "he was banned from driving for a year".
Noun
An official or legal prohibition: "a ban on cigarette advertising".
A monetary unit of Romania, equal to one hundredth of a leu.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Of course it was a 'ban', Lash. CVS officially banned that RS magazine from their stores.

A ban doesn't have to be legally ordained.

0 Replies

@JPB,

Quote:

No, that's not true. They have retail outlets all around the country, but they are not both New England based. Corporate headquarters for Walgreens is in Deerfield, IL.

I was referring specifically to CVS and Stop and Shop - in my writing I was referencing them as the two places I was plannning on going to shop. And not to all the businesses not planning on selling this magazine - as I do not even know all the businesses planning on not selling this.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/20/rolling-stone-cover-poll_n_3625593.html?ncid=txtlnkushpmg00000037&ir=Politics

A poll.

From the Huffington Post poll summary:

"And 51 percent said that the cover glorifies Tsarnaev's actions, while another 26 percent said it did not, and 23 percent said they weren't sure."

From the caption on the Rolling Stone cover under the picture:

"How a ... Student ... Became a Monster."

I'm guessing the 74 percent who either said the cover glorified Tsarnaev's actions or "weren't sure" missed the part of the cover that called him a monster.

1 Reply

@Kolyo,

Kolyo, words aren't as powerful as images - I'm sure you know this. Politicians and advertisers manipulate this to their advantage. The cover was retouched, softened - and even if it wasn't - it's a rock star pic. I've heard the arguments. I see some as plausible, and others as bullshit. Just because someone has an argument doesn't mean people automatically buy it.

It's like a shrewd attorney blurting out an inadmissable remark during trial. The jury is charged not to consider what they heard.

Yeah, right.

The cover glorified the bomber. Without question.

2 Replies

Free speech/expression and CVS.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know