CVS and Walgreens not selling RS magazine w/ Boston Bomber-censorship?

Discussion in 'Community Board' started by Mkrop, Jul 17, 2013.

  1. Mkrop

    Mkrop <font color=coral>I just cant go on demand<br><fon

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    10,732
    Personally I do not think so...RS has the right to put whoever they want on their cover but these companies also have the right not to sell it in their stores.

    People boycott sponsors all the time for things they show on TV etc, and companies pull their support of the product. I see a very similar thing happening. Neither CVS or Walgreens want to be associated with this product. I mean look at all the companies who dropped Tiger Woods or Paula Dean for their "word" or "action". I feel CVS and Walgreen can do the same.

    If you want to purchase the magazine and feel the article has some merit, I am sure you can find another store to purchase it in,
     
  2. Avatar

    Google AdSense Guest Advertisement


    to hide this advert.
  3. Nancy

    Nancy Wasting away in Pegulaville

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 1999
    Messages:
    23,003
    Exactly! Any company can choose to sell or not sell whatever product they want. If someone wants to buy said item they can find the store that sells it.
     
  4. Mkrop

    Mkrop <font color=coral>I just cant go on demand<br><fon

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    10,732
    Facebook has people on the CVS and Walgreens sites screaming censorship which I dont get, that is why I posted this thread
     
  5. Tinkermommy

    Tinkermommy <font color=deeppink>Not too exciting but we all c

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,858
    Only the government can censor something.

    Everything else is a personal/corporate choice.
     
  6. luvgoing2disney

    luvgoing2disney DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    1,808
    What they should have done was placed one copy per store, then after it was gone (or bought by an employee) they could simply say there were sold out. No problem with "censorship" then.
     
  7. si-am

    si-am DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,688
    It is of course their right to sell what they want to sell, but the decision does make me less likely to shop there in the future. Ridiculous, really.
     
  8. penn19

    penn19 DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,306
    Exactly. Maybe not the same thing, but reminds me of when libraries/schools want to ban books. Too controversial etc.....I can think for myself thank you very much.
     
  9. palmtreegirl

    palmtreegirl Loving life in Florida

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    7,966
    Doesn't bother me one bit.
     
  10. Mkrop

    Mkrop <font color=coral>I just cant go on demand<br><fon

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    10,732
    And it might make others want to shop their more...it is the corporate gamble as with anything a corporation pulls away from. I am sure there were plenty of people who thought Nike pulling away from Tiger was ridiculous and there were people who would not buy Nike again.
     
  11. ajgardner

    ajgardner Mouseketeer

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2012
    Messages:
    213
    Funny, their decision makes me more likely to shop there in the future. To each his (her in my case) own.
     
  12. penn19

    penn19 DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,306
    And their decision to do that makes me want to buy a copy (maybe 2) of Rolling Stone. Haven't read it in awhile, but it makes me want to now.
     
  13. Mac4life30

    Mac4life30 DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,234
    Totally agree with you!
     
  14. SLP958

    SLP958 DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2012
    Messages:
    1,237
    Love their response
     
  15. Aliceacc

    Aliceacc <font color=royalblue>We had a wonderful time, but

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    11,428
    So glad to see them take a stand on something they think is wrong.

    It's not censorship. They're not preventing you from reading it. They're just choosing not to spend their money on it. You can most certainly buy it elsewhere.
     
  16. Planogirl

    Planogirl I feel the nerd in me stirring

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2000
    Messages:
    42,679
    They can make that choice but I can also choose not to shop there. In fairness, I don't particularly care for either store anyway.
     
  17. BUTTERHEAD1

    BUTTERHEAD1 Mouseketeer

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    118
    Rolling Stone will never get a dime from me, this terrorist and child killer is some sort of Rock Star? Good for CVS and Walgreens. I will stop by both stores in the next day or two and buy a couple of their other magazines. I hope other companies pull their sponsorship from this rag of a magazine.
     
  18. BUTTERHEAD1

    BUTTERHEAD1 Mouseketeer

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    118
    I have a question for you guys that support this magazines choice to put this animal's face on their cover... would have a different opinion if it was your child that was blown up and killed in this horrific manner? just asking
     
  19. MaryAnnDVC

    MaryAnnDVC "Mare", DISing since '99; prefers being tagless

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2001
    Messages:
    14,208
    Where's the censorship?? Businesses make choices every day about what to sell or not sell, for whatever reasons, as is their right. If you don't like their decision, don't shop there if you don't want to, as is your right. I shop where I shop for convenience, familiarity, availability of the products we want to buy. I won't stop shopping at Target for pulling Paula Deen's products, as ridiculous as I think it was, because I like Target, it's nearby, we use that pharmacy, they sell what I want to buy. (Note...Paula Deen's products are very marked down, if you're looking.)

    I occasionally, if I notice something in the flyer (if I even bother reading it), stop in to CVS, and if they had carried this issue of Rolling Stone (as is their right), since I don't like CVS anyway (or Walgreens...but they do have great Disney decor during holidays :)), I might very well have decided not to shop there anymore, ever (as is my right). Personally, I respect and agree with their decision not to sell this issue.

    There is NO CENSORSHIP in CVS's decision not to carry this issue of Rolling Stone, anymore than it was censorship when they stopped carrying MoroccanOil...unless of course someone wants to claim they have an issue with Moroccans. ;)
     
  20. Disney  Doll

    Disney Doll DIS Security Matron

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2000
    Messages:
    27,794
    That's not censorship.
    That's a company making a corporate decision not to do something.
    I don't have a problem with it.
     
  21. kathie859

    kathie859 DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,521
    The decision by RS to put that madman on their cover is abhorrent. I think it's a lame-brained idea that SOMEONE in charge should have had the good sense to say "I don't THINK so!!"

    However, I get really nervous when a corporation decides for me what products are suitable for my consumption---especially reading material. I'm a smart girl--I can figure this out for myself. Big brother doesn't need to be concerned for my mental welfare.

    I'm all for people (corporations, small business and individuals) to voice their disgust at the cover. RS needs to know.
     

Share This Page