PDA

View Full Version : Borders and Waldenbooks: Cowards



William Haskins
03-30-2006, 11:03 PM
BUFFALO, N.Y. - Borders and Waldenbooks stores will not stock the April-May issue of Free Inquiry magazine because it contains cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that provoked deadly protests among Muslims in several countries.

<snip>

"We absolutely respect our customers' right to choose what they wish to read and buy and we support the First Amendment," Bingham said. "And we absolutely support the rights of Free Inquiry to publish the cartoons. We've just chosen not to carry this particular issue in our stores."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060330/ap_on_re_us/prophet_drawings_1

Shadow_Ferret
03-30-2006, 11:13 PM
Yeah, OK. They support free speech as long as someone else is selling it.

Do I have to PAY for FREE Inquiry magazine? I mean, it says FREE, right here. *points*

Peggy
03-31-2006, 12:34 AM
Maybe it's just me, but every time I hear one of these "x store won't sell my magazine/book" stories, I immediately suspect that it was engineered by the publication in question for the publicity. I sure as he** hadn't heard of Free Inquiry before this news item.

jenngreenleaf
03-31-2006, 12:37 AM
You make a really good point, Peggy. I hadn't thought of it that way. Interesting.

William Haskins
03-31-2006, 12:42 AM
seems like the borders representative would have mentioned that if it were the case...

but yes, let's not blame the corporate cowards.

Stew21
03-31-2006, 12:52 AM
I think it truly just comes down to them being afraid. The media frenzy over the previous riots has them scared and they don't want any part of it. Thing is, by making a big deal of it, they just made it that much more desirable. Great big reminder to the public "this is out there and it is dangerous and controversial."
(as Homer Simpson would say *Doh!*) They just gave the sales to the folks that will carry it, because Borders/Waldens advertised this little bit of cartoon was out there and available, just not by them.

badducky
03-31-2006, 01:15 AM
By golly, that offends me so much that I'm going to burn down the next Borders or Waldenbooks I see!


If you aren't offending somebody, somewhere in the world, you probably aren't doing it right.

Even "The Cosby Show" is offensive to White Supremacists, and they're a bunch of violent, ignorant terror-mongers, too.

Forbidden Snowflake
03-31-2006, 01:29 AM
Well the thing is what happened over here and particularly in Danmark with the cartoons was horrible and if such thing can be avoided in the US, I'd say avoid it.

Even though of course, Freedom of Speech should be the first thing and most important thing everywhere and that would include bringing such things.

William Haskins
03-31-2006, 01:40 AM
Well the thing is what happened over here and particularly in Danmark with the cartoons was horrible and if such thing can be avoided in the US, I'd say avoid it.

so, we should capitulate to threats (or even worse, potential threats) of violence?

so the message to those who would seek to inhibit free and open discourse is to threaten violence. PC race-baiters can get huck finn removed, fundie christians can get non-christian religious texts or anything that smacks of sacrilege removed, prudes can get anything of a sexual nature removed...

yes, it can be a brave new world where everyone buckles to fear.

what a nation of pussies we've become.

robeiae
03-31-2006, 01:42 AM
what a nation of pussies we've become.
Are you gonna see Basic Instinct 2?

Rob :)

William Haskins
03-31-2006, 01:47 AM
Are you gonna see Basic Instinct 2?

Rob :)

what do you think?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v352/morganzola/57157030.jpg

Peggy
03-31-2006, 02:12 AM
seems like the borders representative would have mentioned that if it were the case...

but yes, let's not blame the corporate cowards.I believe it's a mutually beneficial conspiracy in which the publishers get their publicity, while Borders gets out of carrying potentially objectionable material.

I think the capitulation to the implied threat of violence is dispicable*. By removing the material, it just encourages similar threats. They are wusses to not carry the publication, but in the corporate world, I suppose the possiblity of even non-violent protests threatens the bottom line.

I think it's worse that newspapers have refused to carry any of the cartoons, and some (college, I think) newspaper editors who did publish them have been fired. The cartoons are certainly newsworthy, so they should be covered in the news. What good is a newspaper if it never carries anything that has the potential to upset a portion of the population? Anyone who doesn't like it has the right to (non-violently) protest or write letters to the editor.

* I was going to say "means the terrorists have won", but that seemed too much like a sound bite.

Jcomp
03-31-2006, 02:40 AM
eh. weak move on their part, but worse things are happening in the world.

William Haskins
03-31-2006, 02:46 AM
yeah, why worry about the neighbor kicking the sh1t out of his kid when there are other kids are starving in africa...

brokenfingers
03-31-2006, 02:47 AM
Sorry, but I think this is a total non-issue.

Itís a corporate decision and itís totally their right to make it Ė without a bunch of wild-eyed screaming about first amendment rights being infringed upon or threatened.

Who the hell appointed them the guardians of free speech, anyway? Theyíre a business. Thatís it. An entity designed to make money for a group of people. They have made a business decision to not carry a product. Whoopdie-freakin-doo.

And free speech laws were designed so the government could not limit what the common man chooses to say and has no bearing whatsoever on a private entity like Borders and Waldenbooks. If they donít want to carry that magazine or any product Ė who gives a sh!t. I donít have stock in them.

So, excuse me if I donít get riled up because these bookstores are not helping Free Inquiry make more money pushing controversial pics people want to see.

If the government told them they couldnít sell it, then Ok Ė Iíd be as outraged as the next guy. But thatís not the case so, like I said, so freakiní what.

If anybody wants to see these cartoons, there must be at least a million places on the web you can see them Ė for free. I have absolutely no interest in viewing them at all and couldnít care less. As far as Iím concerned anyone who wants to see them now is only entertaining their voyeuristic tendencies Ė akin to watching the smouldering bodies in the carwreck by the side of the road.

So when people shout about how our right to free speech is being threatened because a chain of bookstores decide not to pander makes me laugh.

And who in the hell is capitulating to threats? You? Me? Our government? Our institutions? Sounds to me like itís just a private entity Ė and that is their right to do so. Just as itís your right or mine to put ourselves and our families/employess in jeopardy or not.

The thought that Muslims in the Mideast are cheering in victory over whether Borders sells this magazine makes me laugh. They want western influence out of their countries Ė period. They want Israel destroyed and American influence removed.

To me this borders on hysterics and hyperbole.

No we havenít become a nation of pussies Ė weíve become a nation of whiners.

This country is overflowing with people who sit safely behind their desks and *****, moan and argue endlessly about trivial bullsh!t;

- who lounge around and get high and drunk and screw and b!tch about the state of the world and debate the semantics of the oh-so-important fine print in the meaning of life contract;

- who sit on their couches and complain about what our politicians are doing but donít get involved in the process;

- who watch soundbites and rant and rave about things going on overseas and how our government is spending our money Ė yet want that same government to protect them.

Anybody whoís upset because the Muslim world gets riled up when their religious icon is shown in a disrespectful light should either

a) find a way to wrest control of the masses from the elements in Muslim society that use these things against the west for their own agenda; or


b) find someone who does have a plan to deal with them and work to get them elected, or


c) spend their energy coming up with a plan to deal with Radical Islam, or


d) refrain from portraying Mohammed in a way that seriously upsets them or be prepared to deal with the consequences.

To get mad at the people of Borders and Waldenbooks is a complete waste of energy, to me.

SC Harrison
03-31-2006, 02:55 AM
- who lounge around and get high and drunk and screw and b!tch about the state of the world and debate the semantics of the oh-so-important fine print in the meaning of life contract;



So...this is not the American Dream?

I'm always like three days behind everybody else.

William Haskins
03-31-2006, 02:57 AM
Sorry, but I think this is a total non-issue.

Itís a corporate decision and itís totally their right to make it Ė without a bunch of wild-eyed screaming about first amendment rights being infringed upon or threatened.

Who the hell appointed them the guardians of free speech, anyway? Theyíre a business. Thatís it. An entity designed to make money for a group of people. They have made a business decision to not carry a product. Whoopdie-freakin-doo.

And free speech laws were designed so the government could not limit what the common man chooses to say and has no bearing whatsoever on a private entity like Borders and Waldenbooks. If they donít want to carry that magazine or any product Ė who gives a sh!t. I donít have stock in them.

So, excuse me if I donít get riled up because these bookstores are not helping Free Inquiry make more money pushing controversial pics people want to see.

If the government told them they couldnít sell it, then Ok Ė Iíd be as outraged as the next guy. But thatís not the case so, like I said, so freakiní what.

If anybody wants to see these cartoons, there must be at least a million places on the web you can see them Ė for free. I have absolutely no interest in viewing them at all and couldnít care less. As far as Iím concerned anyone who wants to see them now is only entertaining their voyeuristic tendencies Ė akin to watching the smouldering bodies in the carwreck by the side of the road.

So when people shout about how our right to free speech is being threatened because a chain of bookstores decide not to pander makes me laugh.

And who in the hell is capitulating to threats? You? Me? Our government? Our institutions? Sounds to me like itís just a private entity Ė and that is their right to do so. Just as itís your right or mine to put ourselves and our families/employess in jeopardy or not.

The thought that Muslims in the Mideast are cheering in victory over whether Borders sells this magazine makes me laugh. They want western influence out of their countries Ė period. They want Israel destroyed and American influence removed.

To me this borders on hysterics and hyperbole.

No we havenít become a nation of pussies Ė weíve become a nation of whiners.

This country is overflowing with people who sit safely behind their desks and *****, moan and argue endlessly about trivial bullsh!t;

- who lounge around and get high and drunk and screw and b!tch about the state of the world and debate the semantics of the oh-so-important fine print in the meaning of life contract;

- who sit on their couches and complain about what our politicians are doing but donít get involved in the process;

- who watch soundbites and rant and rave about things going on overseas and how our government is spending our money Ė yet want that same government to protect them.

Anybody whoís upset because the Muslim world gets riled up when their religious icon is shown in a disrespectful light should either

a) find a way to wrest control of the masses from the elements in Muslim society that use these things against the west for their own agenda; or


b) find someone who does have a plan to deal with them and work to get them elected, or


c) spend their energy coming up with a plan to deal with Radical Islam, or


d) refrain from portraying Mohammed in a way that seriously upsets them or be prepared to deal with the consequences.

To get mad at the people of Borders and Waldenbooks is a complete waste of energy, to me.

straw man. never mentioned the first amendment.

Jcomp
03-31-2006, 02:58 AM
yeah, why worry about the neighbor kicking the sh1t out of his kid when there are other kids are starving in africa...

Or starving kids at the other next door neighbor's house...

brokenfingers
03-31-2006, 03:03 AM
I wasn't pointing any fingers at you, Hask. But was going by the article:
BUFFALO, N.Y. - Borders and Waldenbooks stores will not stock the April-May issue of Free Inquiry magazine because it contains cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that provoked deadly protests among Muslims in several countries.
"We absolutely respect our customers' right to choose what they wish to read and buy and we support the First Amendment," Bingham said. "And we absolutely support the rights of Free Inquiry to publish the cartoons. We've just chosen not to carry this particular issue in our stores."

The way it's worded it implies it's a free speech/first amendment issue.

Plus there are these quotes form other posts that made it seem like a free speech issue:


Yeah, OK. They support free speech as long as someone else is selling it.


Even though of course, Freedom of Speech should be the first thing and most important thing everywhere and that would include bringing such things.


so the message to those who would seek to inhibit free and open discourse is to threaten violence. PC race-baiters can get huck finn removed, fundie christians can get non-christian religious texts or anything that smacks of sacrilege removed, prudes can get anything of a sexual nature removed...

Celia Cyanide
03-31-2006, 03:19 AM
Sorry, but I think this is a total non-issue.

Itís a corporate decision and itís totally their right to make it Ė without a bunch of wild-eyed screaming about first amendment rights being infringed upon or threatened.

Yes, I agree. This is similar to the thread about the book being sold on Amazon.

A book store can decide what they do and do not carry for any reason they want. It could be because they don't want to deal with people's reactions, or it could be because they, personally find it objectionable. Either way, it's their call to make. What if this were the "pedophile" book that they were choosing not to carry?

Is there a reason why Borders and Waldenbooks customers need to have access to these cartoons, and cannot seek them out for themselves?

William Haskins
03-31-2006, 03:29 AM
i never said they have to carry anything they don't want to carry. i just said it was cowardly to carry the feb-march issue and the june-july issue, and not carry the april-may issue.

it seems antithetical to the mission of a bookstore.

but hey, as long as the sheep just shrug, let it roll.

maybe one day it'll be your book.

Jcomp
03-31-2006, 03:31 AM
i never said they have to carry anything they don't want to carry. i just said it was cowardly to carry the feb-march issue and the june-july issue, and not carry the april-may issue.

it seems antithetical to the mission of a bookstore.

but hey, as long as the sheep just shrug, let it roll.

maybe one day it'll be your book.

and get pub like this? I'll take it.

William Haskins
03-31-2006, 04:52 AM
publicity ain't sh1t if no one will sell your book.

remember that even amazon is in bed with borders and waldenbooks.

book banning, book burning, persecution of artists and general suppression of public discourse never fall in one fell swoop. they're incremental and the radical conclusion of seemingly meaningless steps along the way.

Lantern Jack
03-31-2006, 08:53 AM
BUFFALO, N.Y. - Borders and Waldenbooks stores will not stock the April-May issue of Free Inquiry magazine because it contains cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that provoked deadly protests among Muslims in several countries.

<snip>

"We absolutely respect our customers' right to choose what they wish to read and buy and we support the First Amendment," Bingham said. "And we absolutely support the rights of Free Inquiry to publish the cartoons. We've just chosen not to carry this particular issue in our stores."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060330/ap_on_re_us/prophet_drawings_1

Um, as a person who actually lives in Buffalo, NY, I should point out that it's a very volatile region and people are already in throat-ripping moods over this Delphi thing, threatening strikes, riots. It's best not to provoke people at present. Just thought you might appreciate the weighing-in of a local:)

William Haskins
03-31-2006, 08:56 AM
i appreciate your perspective (and i understand the power of fear) but it doesn't change how i feel in the slightest.

Celia Cyanide
03-31-2006, 06:29 PM
publicity ain't sh1t if no one will sell your book.

remember that even amazon is in bed with borders and waldenbooks.

book banning, book burning, persecution of artists and general suppression of public discourse never fall in one fell swoop. they're incremental and the radical conclusion of seemingly meaningless steps along the way.

It's a magazine, not a book. And I have a hard time believing they don't have a website where you can order it, or couldn't create one.

badducky
03-31-2006, 06:59 PM
Since you live in Buffalo, Lantern Jack, is there any way you could make the magazine available, or put up flyers about the issue in bookstores so people know that they're missing something on the magazine rack?


A handy little flyer shoved right where the magazine SHOULD be...

I doubt that every bookstore manager puts corporate BS and fear in front of the first amendment.

brokenfingers
03-31-2006, 07:05 PM
Since you live in Buffalo, Lantern Jack, is there any way you could make the magazine available, or put up flyers about the issue in bookstores so people know that they're missing something on the magazine rack?


A handy little flyer shoved right where the magazine SHOULD be...

I doubt that every bookstore manager puts corporate BS and fear in front of the first amendment.Once again - how is this a first amendment issue? C'mon people. Sheesh.

badducky
03-31-2006, 07:43 PM
This is a first amendment issue because a bunch of thugs are shoving their religious intolerance down the throats of the general public with bombs and guns.

We have a separation of church and state in the free world. I can be offended by the depictions of my Lord and Savior in the media, but that doesn't give me the right to silence the voices that speak (or draw) criticism.

And, these riots didn't begin over cartoons that were made by Danish artists. Rather, Mullahs added their own doodles to the pile to inflame the masses. the original cartoons brought a shrug. Their lies and hate-speech brought the violence.

Now, we're supposed to remain silent about this, and keep the offensive cartoons hidden because it might offend somebody with a bomb or a gun?

Free speech is there to protect people who have an unpopular thing to say.

Links like this: Here are the cartoons that caused so much furor.
http://epaper.jp.dk/30-09-2005/demo/JP_04-03.html

Remember, people died to bring you these cartoons.

And now, Borders bends out of fear to the will of them that killed.

brokenfingers
03-31-2006, 08:29 PM
Hmmmm... maybe you should read up on the first amendment. It deals with the rights of American citizens to not have the American government interfere or limit their speech.

Not only is that not the case here - the government has not banned anything - but it has no bearing whatsover on the conduct of the rest of the world.

Just a reminder folks: Our laws only apply within our own borders.

badducky
03-31-2006, 08:33 PM
Like all things, there's the law, and then there is the spirit of the law.


The spirit of the first amendment is the prevention of censorship, in all it's forms.

The Declaration of Independence isn't an official legal document, but the tenets are often an important part of the judicial decisions made everyday.

As freedom-loving Americans, we should reject all forms of censorship.

The constitution also guarantees men a musket, but this is interpreted to include shotguns, rifles, and nunchuku by the spirit of the law.

Celia Cyanide
03-31-2006, 08:50 PM
We have a separation of church and state in the free world. I can be offended by the depictions of my Lord and Savior in the media, but that doesn't give me the right to silence the voices that speak (or draw) criticism.

Actually, if you own a store, you WOULD have the right to decide not to carry anything you found offensive. Any time Jesus is portrayed in a way that Christians find offensive, they boycott. If enough people boycotted, a store would lose money. And the store has the right to do what is best for their business. Why is this any different? That's why book stores don't carry PublishAmerica books, isn't it? Should they be required to carry all books, even vanity publishing, because if they don't, it's censorship? Would you go into a Christian bookstore and complain because they didn't carry any books an atheism?


Now, we're supposed to remain silent about this, and keep the offensive cartoons hidden because it might offend somebody with a bomb or a gun?

I'm going to "remain silent about this" because I'm not going to go out of my way to tell everybody about something unless I feel it's important. I don't think these cartoons are important literary works. I don't think there needs to be a flyer where the magazine "should" be, because, just like the "pedophile book," I don't care enough about it. If people want to buy them, fine, but I'm not going to get mad at a store for not carrying them. There are enough worthwhile and important books out there being picked for me to waste my time to say, "look, everyone! You have to look online to see these cartoons for free, instead of buying them at Borders!" It's a waste of my time.


Free speech is there to protect people who have an unpopular thing to say.

Like the guy who wrote the pedophile book. Should there by a flyer in every store that doesn't carry that?

Free speech is protecting it. There are two sides to freedom of speech. The freedom of others to not like what you have to say. If you own a business, you can decide what to carry and what not to carry, for any reason.

William Haskins
03-31-2006, 09:00 PM
your comparison of political cartoons to books on pedophilia is getting tiresome, celia.

i agree with you 100% that a business has the right to sell what it wants to sell, or not. however, as has been pointed out before, the stores have carried previous issues of this magazine, and say they plan to carry future issues. they have decided not to carry this particular one because of the cartoons.

i didn't say it was illegal, i didn't say it was in violation of the constitutional right to free speech. i said it was cowardly. and it is.

i worked for years at a waldenbooks smack dab in the middle of the bible belt. to the store manager's credit (and the company's), we stocked rushdie's satanic verses, even as a fatwa was placed on his head and kazantzakis' last temptation of christ, when the movie came out and bible thumpers were protesting it.

it's a shame to see writers so unconcerned about this type of thing.

maybe one day you'll be cast in a movie that gets caught up in controversy to the extent that theaters won't run it and video stores won't sell it. we'll see how flippantly you suggest that someone just track it down on the internet.

badducky
03-31-2006, 09:05 PM
Here's a link I like on this issue.


http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2006/03/calling_pen.php

This is a form of censorship. I'm not the politest of guys. I speak my mind, and sometimes it offends people.

Next time, it could be me.

Or you.

Celia Cyanide
03-31-2006, 09:15 PM
your comparison of political cartoons to books on pedophilia is getting tiresome, celia.

Both of them are things that offend people. One is worse than the other, but how do you decide what is and is not important enough to get offended about?


maybe one day you'll be cast in a movie that gets caught up in controversy to the extent that theaters won't run it and video stores won't sell it. we'll see how flippantly you suggest that someone just track it down on the internet.

As a matter of fact, I am. The controversy seems to be that I am not famous, and neither is the writer director, or anyone else in the film. It certainly is a pity no theatres are "brave" enough to show the film of a first time director with no budget and no stars, but such is life. So far, I've been suggesting that people buy it on the internet.

William Haskins
03-31-2006, 09:25 PM
jesus what a lame f*cking argument.

badducky
03-31-2006, 09:37 PM
This "slippery slope" is the same nonsense neo-cons are using to fight gay marriage.


By golly, if gay marriage becomes legal, what's to stop polygamy, or pedophiles, or goats!
By golly, if we have something that's offensive to someone, we might as well open the floodgates of slime!

Of course, this argument cuts both ways. As I said, what's to stop them from pulling your stuff just because it offends someone?

trumancoyote
03-31-2006, 09:44 PM
This is really lame of Border's, but expected.

During the last election they sent out special notices to all the employees that we would be fired if we displayed, in any way shape or form, something that implied we liked one or the other: Bush or Kerry. I almost did get fired, actually.

We were also told to tell people that the company didn't support one or the other when customers brought up the fact that there were far fewer anti-Kerry books than anti-Bush books -- "It's what's been published. If it's been published, we carry it," we were supposed to say.

It's smart business, I'll give them that; one of the more important rules of capitalism, or business in general: don't not sell to anyone, 'cause money is money.

Thing is, though, the played it off as favoring equality and open-mindedness, which was the tone of their rhetoric in any employee notice that we got.

But then I find out that all their campaign donations went to the Republican party, and then this: and it is all about money, and it doesn't have a good goddamn nothin' to do with equality.

Sure, I can respect that from a business standpoint; it should be about the money. But don't ****ing pretend that you're not scared you're going to lose customers if you have that magazine available -- that you're respecting someone else.

Because that's ********.

badducky
03-31-2006, 09:46 PM
I miss the days of independent booksellers...

Celia Cyanide
03-31-2006, 10:50 PM
Of course, this argument cuts both ways. As I said, what's to stop them from pulling your stuff just because it offends someone?

In this country, we have the freedom to buy something or not buy it. You don't have to approve of their decision, but they don't have to buy it. You're upset about this, but don't expect me to be.


By golly, if we have something that's offensive to someone, we might as well open the floodgates of slime!

That's not what I'm saying at all, badducky, so please don't compare me to opponents of gay marriage. Every store is going to draw the line somewhere. For some, it's going to be hate speech. For Christian book stores, it's probably going to be anything they don't feel is Christian.


jesus what a lame f*cking argument.

Okay, so apparently, it's okay for a business not to carry something because they won't make money, but it's not okay not to carry something for any other reason?

William Haskins
03-31-2006, 11:08 PM
Okay, so apparently, it's okay for a business not to carry something because they won't make money, but it's not okay not to carry something for any other reason?

er... i may be remembering wrong, but what are your views on pharmacies not wanting to sell the morning after pill?

Celia Cyanide
03-31-2006, 11:13 PM
er... i may be remembering wrong, but what are your views on pharmacies not wanting to sell the morning after pill?

That no one who works in a store should refuse to give a customer something that the store carries. If the store doesn't want to carry a certain medication, they don't have to. I've been to lots of pharmacies that didn't have the medication I needed.

ETA: I see the comparison you are making, but if the store DID carry the magazine, and a clerk refused to wait on someone who bought it, I would think that person should be fired.

William Haskins
03-31-2006, 11:17 PM
fair enough.

badducky
03-31-2006, 11:27 PM
The "slippery slope" argument is what I'm talking about. I'm not comparing you to those crazy loons.

I'm comparing the argument you make to the argument they make, to show how dangerous it is to use.

Look, clearly we disagree on this. But, we're getting out of office party, and into "take it outside" territory.

And, for some reason, the government doesn't view us here at Absolute Write as a thinktank for federal policy. They really should, though. Could you imagine if Bush replaced Rove with Haskins?

I hate all forms of censorship. I hate it when a corporation tells it's staff what they can and cannot profess. Apparently, you're supposed to turn off your personality when you put on a nametag. Retail is a horrible way to make a living, and I truly feel for anyone who has to do that.

If we don't work to fight censorship -- even soft censorship like this -- censorship will creep into the mainstream and stay there. As an activist, I'm sure you're aware of the danger of apathy.

Celia Cyanide
04-01-2006, 01:47 AM
The "slippery slope" argument is what I'm talking about. I'm not comparing you to those crazy loons.

I'm comparing the argument you make to the argument they make, to show how dangerous it is to use.

Actually, you are a little guilty of using it too. You are saying, "If they do it to them, they can do it to you too." They would be allowed to do that, too, and I would have to accept that. Come to think of it, I haven't seen Borders carrying anything I write.


If we don't work to fight censorship -- even soft censorship like this -- censorship will creep into the mainstream and stay there. As an activist, I'm sure you're aware of the danger of apathy.

What do you propose as a solution? The government forcing stores to carry certain items, even if they are controversial? Even if it goes against the store owner's personal convictions? Even if it would cause the store to lose business? That is just as dangerous, and that is FAR closer to true censorship--government intervention--than this is. If you take away the right of stores to carry what they choose, it works in both directions. If the government is allowed to decide, "you have to carry this," they can turn around and decide, "you can't carry that."

You mention independent stores, but they have standards for what they will and will not carry, too.

I'm "aware of the danger of apathy," but I'm also aware that some people feel more strongly about certain issues than others. You can get as upset about this as you want to, but you can't expect me to. I don't know of any stores in my neighborhood carrying this magazine, either, and I'm not upset about it. The fact that I'm a writer does not mean I'm obligated to be morally outraged on behalf of what I feel is a stupid, unfunny political cartoon.

badducky
04-01-2006, 02:13 AM
I admitted to using the slippery slope argument when I mentioned how it cuts both ways.

My solution is simple: the general public raises peaceful voices on the issue to fight for social justice.

I've already contacted Borders HQ with my two cents.

Companies have a habit of responding when thousands of customers contact them about one thing.

I hope you contact them, too.

Celia Cyanide
04-01-2006, 02:24 AM
My solution is simple: the general public raises peaceful voices on the issue to fight for social justice.

Everyone has their own ideas about social justice and how what stores carry effects that. For every person who complains to Border's about what they choose not to carry, someone else complains about something they DO carry. The store has to establish their own policy. The American Family Association boycotts record stores for carrying Eminem CD's. If those stores lost enough revenue, they would probably stop carrying them. Do I approve of that? No. Is that their right? Yes.


I hope you contact them, too.

I'm not going to, because, as I said before, I just don't care. If it were a book I felt was worthwhile, that I thought it should be available to people, because I felt it would enrich their lives, I would probably contact them. As it now stands, I don't feel that way about this cartoon. I applaud you for speaking your mind. But I don't personally feel Border's decision is important enough to me to be arguing with them about it. I understand that you do, and that is fine. But it makes no difference to me if people can buy this magazine at Border's or not.

William Haskins
04-01-2006, 02:51 AM
I just don't care. If it were a book I felt was worthwhile, that I thought it should be available to people, because I felt it would enrich their lives, I would probably contact them. As it now stands, I don't feel that way about this cartoon. that says it all.