Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, July 29, 2009
News The Morning News
Posted by David Schmader on Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:08 AM
"Not Guilty": The plea of Dr. George Tiller's alleged killer.
"That's him": Sworn testimony of an eyewitness to the murder of Dr. George Tiller, regarding Tiller's alleged killer.
Fighting Over Islam: Over 400 killed in ongoing Nigerian bloodbath.
Ouch: ABC News frames the South Park murders as the result of King County's failure to jail a dangerous criminal.
Top-Selling iPhone App: Sex-offender locator!
Most Amazing Candy Ever Sickens Little Girl: 4-year-old falls ill after eating Skittles mixed with Oxycontin.
But Does Arsenic Give Me This Sexy Yammy Skin Tone?: Tanning beds declared to be as deadly as arsenic.
One for the Goddamn Record Books: Will today be Seattle's hottest day ever?
And finally, on this day in 1968, Gram Parsons quit the Byrds on the eve of a South African tour, unwilling to play to that country's racially segregated audiences. Maybe drugs and solo ambitions had something to do with it, too, but whatever the case, it freed him up for the Flying Burrito Brothers and solo work. Here's Parson's "Return of the Grievous Angel," sung with Emmylou Harris, and so gorgeous it more than makes up for the folksy slide-show video. (Also, listening to this song while watching the weird folksy video and eating a popsicle will make you feel 40 times better. Repeat as necessary throughout this freakishly hot day.)
1
OOOOOOOOhhhhhhhh
Skittles and OxyContin
yum yum yummmyyy -
kinda sweet, kinda tart and will fuck you up
Skittles and OxyContin
yum yum yummmyyy -
kinda sweet, kinda tart and will fuck you up
3
Tiller's killer says he's not guilty. I thought he feels proud of killing the doctor. I thought he's some kind of christian hero. I thought he was supposed to be brave and correct for what he alledgedly did. Now he's just a coward. A cowardly murderer. What gives?
5
Enjoyed the Gram Parson's video; if you're talking roots music you have to mention Dave Alvin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii1gm9MTd…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii1gm9MTd…
6
The pretty ladies of the late 19th Century would take small amounts of arsenic to give them porcelain skin.
(also, Health Care Reform -- stay loud and angry. Keep writing to your elected officials. It's fun! You can complain like mad! 6 greedy pigs in the Senate are in the pockets of the Health lobby and stripping the legislation of a public option.)
The only time I was intimate with a yam-tan type, it got all over my sheets and towels. Not worth it by any means.
(also, Health Care Reform -- stay loud and angry. Keep writing to your elected officials. It's fun! You can complain like mad! 6 greedy pigs in the Senate are in the pockets of the Health lobby and stripping the legislation of a public option.)
The only time I was intimate with a yam-tan type, it got all over my sheets and towels. Not worth it by any means.
8
It will be Hot today in Seattle.
Global Warming.
Bush hopes you won't notice.
Global Warming is Classified.
However, your sweat glands don't lie
Global Warming.
Bush hopes you won't notice.
Global Warming is Classified.
However, your sweat glands don't lie
10
Liberal Washington doesn't have the balls to execute an animal like Kalebu.
Don't act surprised when he kills and kills and kills again.
You are accessories, before and after the fact.
Don't act surprised when he kills and kills and kills again.
You are accessories, before and after the fact.
11
Isn't it amusing how "christians" think killing is alright. Pro-life? Pro-death! And they even change their commandments to fit their homocidal rages.
12
And the biggest story of all:
Obama fails to lead on health care reform, goes silent as 6 greedy pigs knife him. "What?" he asked, "what are these knives doing inside me?"
When asked why he isn't leading, he said, "you know, it's just fine to have folks like meowmeowkitty lead us." "I'm preparing for vacation on Martha's Vineyard Island. congress is going away in August, too. We'll get back on this in September after I review the health plans of my golf partners and sailboat partners on the Island." Aides noted it was likely that Ted kennedy's sailboat might give the Obmas a ride, although the Senator himself was probably too ill to come on board. "As we drink our Mimosas we will review Senator Kennedy's wisdom on health care with his aides who know how to skipper the boat," Obama said.
"DC is on vacation in August, by the end of my vacation I'll figure out what I'm for, how to talk to those blue dogs, and why they're called blue. Maybe I'll get around to mobilizing ordinary folks later."
Obama fails to lead on health care reform, goes silent as 6 greedy pigs knife him. "What?" he asked, "what are these knives doing inside me?"
When asked why he isn't leading, he said, "you know, it's just fine to have folks like meowmeowkitty lead us." "I'm preparing for vacation on Martha's Vineyard Island. congress is going away in August, too. We'll get back on this in September after I review the health plans of my golf partners and sailboat partners on the Island." Aides noted it was likely that Ted kennedy's sailboat might give the Obmas a ride, although the Senator himself was probably too ill to come on board. "As we drink our Mimosas we will review Senator Kennedy's wisdom on health care with his aides who know how to skipper the boat," Obama said.
"DC is on vacation in August, by the end of my vacation I'll figure out what I'm for, how to talk to those blue dogs, and why they're called blue. Maybe I'll get around to mobilizing ordinary folks later."
13
#7: Thanks for the link, but that's a ridiculous interpretation. Some people wrote articles criticizing CVS for carrying hate speech books, and CVS stopped selling the books. That's free speech in action, not censorship.
14
@7: That's not actually censorship.
The books are allowed to be published and sold. CVS decided that they were not appropriate material to be sold in their stores. Much like many stores like CVS won't sell pornography because they deem it inappropriate and (most importantly for a business) it may hurt their bottom line because people won't shop there. I'm guessing similar drug stores in Mobile, AL don't sell pro-gay titles, either.
The books are allowed to be published and sold. CVS decided that they were not appropriate material to be sold in their stores. Much like many stores like CVS won't sell pornography because they deem it inappropriate and (most importantly for a business) it may hurt their bottom line because people won't shop there. I'm guessing similar drug stores in Mobile, AL don't sell pro-gay titles, either.
15
@ 13, I've never heard pressuring retailers to stop selling controversial books described as "free speech in action." No, that's banning books.
16
@15: True -- Actually, it's capitalism in action. If a company believes that carrying certain products will hurt its bottom line, it can choose not to carry them.
17
13
14
New York Times:
"But at least the principle of allowing unpopular opinions to be heard was upheld. That is more than some civil libertarians believe was the case in Chelsea, a Manhattan neighborhood with a large gay and lesbian population."
"CHELSEA is indeed diverse. Among its residents is Michael Meyers, executive director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition. He was appalled, too, but for a different reason: Are we now banning books?"
"A free society must “oppose inane attempts to silence people and to suppress ideas or to ban books that disagree with us,” Mr. Meyers."
"A censorious streak runs stubbornly through this city that regards itself as a bastion of tolerance. It has led to the removal of a billboard that challenged immigration policies and of another that quoted a biblical passage condemning homosexuality. It kept an antiwar message from being put up in Times Square during the 2004 Republican National Convention. It stripped Bronx bus shelters of notices about a free health information line for gay men and lesbians. Other examples abound."
14
New York Times:
"But at least the principle of allowing unpopular opinions to be heard was upheld. That is more than some civil libertarians believe was the case in Chelsea, a Manhattan neighborhood with a large gay and lesbian population."
"CHELSEA is indeed diverse. Among its residents is Michael Meyers, executive director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition. He was appalled, too, but for a different reason: Are we now banning books?"
"A free society must “oppose inane attempts to silence people and to suppress ideas or to ban books that disagree with us,” Mr. Meyers."
"A censorious streak runs stubbornly through this city that regards itself as a bastion of tolerance. It has led to the removal of a billboard that challenged immigration policies and of another that quoted a biblical passage condemning homosexuality. It kept an antiwar message from being put up in Times Square during the 2004 Republican National Convention. It stripped Bronx bus shelters of notices about a free health information line for gay men and lesbians. Other examples abound."
19
#15: Nobody's banning anything. If the government banned certain books, or pulled certain books from libraries, that's banning books. The whole point of ensuring free speech is to protect the ability for citizens to criticize the actions of the government and private citizens. See Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" or Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle."
A year or two ago Wal-Mart started selling t-shirts with a Nazi slogan on them, and people responded by writing articles critizing Wal-Mart for selling the shirts. Wal-Mart responded and promised to stop selling the Nazi t-shirts. Is that censorship too? What about the angry articles about OJ Simpson's book "(If) I Did It", that caused the publisher to pull the book. Is that censorship?
The answer is obviously no. It's not okay for book publishers and stores to sell whatever products they want without being criticized for unethical actions. Banning the criticism would be censorship. The criticism itself is free speech.
A year or two ago Wal-Mart started selling t-shirts with a Nazi slogan on them, and people responded by writing articles critizing Wal-Mart for selling the shirts. Wal-Mart responded and promised to stop selling the Nazi t-shirts. Is that censorship too? What about the angry articles about OJ Simpson's book "(If) I Did It", that caused the publisher to pull the book. Is that censorship?
The answer is obviously no. It's not okay for book publishers and stores to sell whatever products they want without being criticized for unethical actions. Banning the criticism would be censorship. The criticism itself is free speech.
20
@ 19, there's a difference between banning and censorship. You'd do well to learn the distinction. They're not interchangeable words.
Criticize the retailers all you want. Criticize the publishers all you want. Criticize the ignorant jackasses who buy their books. But don't take away their choice to offer or purchase them. That's beyond criticism.
Criticize the retailers all you want. Criticize the publishers all you want. Criticize the ignorant jackasses who buy their books. But don't take away their choice to offer or purchase them. That's beyond criticism.
21
@20: So by your logic, every Christian bookstore MUST carry Baby Be-Bop and whatever the latest Zane porn-masquerading-as-literature is? And the gay bookstores in the Village need to have a Glenn Beck section?
Flawed logic, Matt.
Flawed logic, Matt.
22
@ 21, no, you're engaging in flawed reasoning. Nothing in my argument says ALL retailers MUST carry everything. And CVS Caremark is neither a Christian retailer nor a LGBT one, so your comparison doesn't hold.
23
Matt,
I''m not getting what your saying, but I just finished putting in 6 miles and we've hit 30 degrees Celsius here, and are expected to hit 40 degrees. (When it's really hot I prefer Celsius, it looks cooler and demands that I use my brain to calculate it (Temp. X 1.8 + 32), and I don't have A/C). So, I might just need more water. I'm agreeing with Cracker Jack and Lizzie here. For profit sellers have the right to decide what they will sell, and this includes literature.
I''m not getting what your saying, but I just finished putting in 6 miles and we've hit 30 degrees Celsius here, and are expected to hit 40 degrees. (When it's really hot I prefer Celsius, it looks cooler and demands that I use my brain to calculate it (Temp. X 1.8 + 32), and I don't have A/C). So, I might just need more water. I'm agreeing with Cracker Jack and Lizzie here. For profit sellers have the right to decide what they will sell, and this includes literature.
24
Matt --
So what are you saying? If not every retailer must carry everything how is choosing not to carry any item because a segment of their customers find an item offensive "banning"? The retailer would call it listening to the opinion of their customers.
A retailer in the middle of one of the gayest neighborhoods in one of the gayest cities in the world doesn't carry anti-gay literature. It's a conspiracy! No, wait, it's good business.
So what are you saying? If not every retailer must carry everything how is choosing not to carry any item because a segment of their customers find an item offensive "banning"? The retailer would call it listening to the opinion of their customers.
A retailer in the middle of one of the gayest neighborhoods in one of the gayest cities in the world doesn't carry anti-gay literature. It's a conspiracy! No, wait, it's good business.
25
@ 23, there's a difference between making those decisions based on what sells and what doesn't, and making it based on pressure from the public.
Let me ask you this: Say that a chain pharmacy store in, say, Lynchburg VA. is carrying Dan Savage books. Someone comes in, tells the store that he objects to them carrying the book because children need to be protected from books about gay sex, and they stop carrying it.
If you're alright with this, then I can respect it as it would be in line with being alright with what took place in Chelsea.
I believe that free speech means respecting the right of others to express themselves, and that forcing retailers to stop carrying books I don't like is fundamentally at odds with this principle. That's not the same as the free market principles you and the others are expressing.
Let me ask you this: Say that a chain pharmacy store in, say, Lynchburg VA. is carrying Dan Savage books. Someone comes in, tells the store that he objects to them carrying the book because children need to be protected from books about gay sex, and they stop carrying it.
If you're alright with this, then I can respect it as it would be in line with being alright with what took place in Chelsea.
I believe that free speech means respecting the right of others to express themselves, and that forcing retailers to stop carrying books I don't like is fundamentally at odds with this principle. That's not the same as the free market principles you and the others are expressing.
26
@ 24, a retailer in the gayest neighborhood in NYC would have eventually found that the title wasn't selling because, duh, anti-gay bigotry doesn't sell in gay neighborhoods. They would have dropped it all on their own.
27
Matt --
I would expect that a drug store in Lynchburg, VA would not be carrying Dan's books. If they did, I'd expect that pressure would be brought to bear by the locals and that in the face of boycott by the majority of the store's clientele, the books would not be offered.
But that's not banning.
I would expect that a drug store in Lynchburg, VA would not be carrying Dan's books. If they did, I'd expect that pressure would be brought to bear by the locals and that in the face of boycott by the majority of the store's clientele, the books would not be offered.
But that's not banning.
29
Thanks, Matt.
I see the point your getting at now and I agree. It would have been better to allow the book to languish on the shelf, than to seek it's removal and generate press around it. Just as I ignore the Ann Coulter books that sit near the checkout lines in the local Fred Meyer's. Although, I respect the rights of the individuals who complained as well.
I see the point your getting at now and I agree. It would have been better to allow the book to languish on the shelf, than to seek it's removal and generate press around it. Just as I ignore the Ann Coulter books that sit near the checkout lines in the local Fred Meyer's. Although, I respect the rights of the individuals who complained as well.
30
WTF? Banning is carried out by the government or other agencies in power. If I write an article saying "CVS is fucked up for selling anti-gay hate speech," and then CVS says "you're right, our bad," that's not banning. That's free speech and the free market in action.
Do you think businesses shouldn't be allowed to stop selling products based on consumer criticism?
Do you think consumers shouldn't be allowed to criticise businesses for unethical practices?
If the answer to both of those is "no," then nothing went wrong here.
Do you think businesses shouldn't be allowed to stop selling products based on consumer criticism?
Do you think consumers shouldn't be allowed to criticise businesses for unethical practices?
If the answer to both of those is "no," then nothing went wrong here.
31
Thank you too, Kim.
No, lizzie, banning occurs whenever people put pressure on a retailer or library to not carry certain books they deem offensive, and not allow the patrons even the choice to purchase or check out those books. It's "censorship" when the government does it, but "banning" when its impetus comes from the grassroots.
This wasn't "consumer criticism;" someone saw the book, decided they didn't want it in their neighborhood, wrote a letter decrying it's availability, leading to a local paper opining the same thing. It's not the same as a sales report or a focus group finding.
And what, exactly, is "unethical" about carrying a book? It's not poison.
Here's the thing - in a free society, individuals ought to be free to decide what they can and cannot purchase for themselves. We shouldn't be so insecure as to make that decision for others.
No, lizzie, banning occurs whenever people put pressure on a retailer or library to not carry certain books they deem offensive, and not allow the patrons even the choice to purchase or check out those books. It's "censorship" when the government does it, but "banning" when its impetus comes from the grassroots.
This wasn't "consumer criticism;" someone saw the book, decided they didn't want it in their neighborhood, wrote a letter decrying it's availability, leading to a local paper opining the same thing. It's not the same as a sales report or a focus group finding.
And what, exactly, is "unethical" about carrying a book? It's not poison.
Here's the thing - in a free society, individuals ought to be free to decide what they can and cannot purchase for themselves. We shouldn't be so insecure as to make that decision for others.
32
It's ridiculous if you think "ban" means that. "Plastic bag ban" means the government prohibits plastic bags. It does not mean I wrote a letter to QFC saying I don't like plastic bags.
Libraries are public/government entities, which is why it's a big deal if they pull books based on content. It's healthy and normal and desirable that private Christian booksellers sell mostly Christian books, or if Bailey-Coy sells mostly independent and gay-friendly books. It's ridiculous if you think that every bookseller should give the consumer the option to purchase EVERY book.
Yes -- letters and editorials are "consumer criticism." Sales reports are not.
What exactly do you think should have happened differently? Gay people should just have kept shopping at CVS looking at the gay hate speech on the shelves? Should they be forced to keep shopping there, since you're against boycotts? CVS should be forced to keep the books on the shelves forever until they're sold, because otherwise would be a "ban"? WTF?
Libraries are public/government entities, which is why it's a big deal if they pull books based on content. It's healthy and normal and desirable that private Christian booksellers sell mostly Christian books, or if Bailey-Coy sells mostly independent and gay-friendly books. It's ridiculous if you think that every bookseller should give the consumer the option to purchase EVERY book.
Yes -- letters and editorials are "consumer criticism." Sales reports are not.
What exactly do you think should have happened differently? Gay people should just have kept shopping at CVS looking at the gay hate speech on the shelves? Should they be forced to keep shopping there, since you're against boycotts? CVS should be forced to keep the books on the shelves forever until they're sold, because otherwise would be a "ban"? WTF?
33
Lizzie said it before I could -- and probably better, too :)
A corporation needs to be sensitive to the desires of its clientele. If they don't they will not stay in business. If the clientele says "I will not shop in your store, and tell my friends not to either, because you sell books that denigrate me and/or my friends" the company needs to listen or they will lose business. Now CVS could choose to ignore that feedback and continue to offer the books -- no one was blocking distribution of the book to their stores -- but they felt that they were better serving their clientele and community and that's just good customer relations.
A corporation needs to be sensitive to the desires of its clientele. If they don't they will not stay in business. If the clientele says "I will not shop in your store, and tell my friends not to either, because you sell books that denigrate me and/or my friends" the company needs to listen or they will lose business. Now CVS could choose to ignore that feedback and continue to offer the books -- no one was blocking distribution of the book to their stores -- but they felt that they were better serving their clientele and community and that's just good customer relations.
34
Justify it however you want, you still feel that it's okay to make the decision for others what they can and can not buy.
Lizzie, I know reading for comprehension isn't your strong suit, so I'll repeat: there's nothing in any of my comments that can be reasonably restated as I "think that every bookseller should give the consumer the option to purchase EVERY book." I challenge you to find anything I said that can be construed that way.
THIS bookseller made the decision to make THIS book available to its clientele. And yes, I think that the gays and lesbians who saw it should have let it alone, since it wasn't a LGBT retailer, or at least kept it between themselves and the retailer rather than running to a newspaper crying "think of the children!!!" (Which is why, Cracker Jack, this can't be considered to be a "we're just listening to our clientele" move; it's more of a damage control move.)
If you really believe in the concept of free speech, you never forget that it means free speech for those you most disagree with. You can split hairs over definitions, but you can't deny that this is an instance where some people took action to deny others the freedom to choose to purchase this book in this outlet. As such, you can't deny that it's contrary to the spirit of what free speech is.
Lizzie, I know reading for comprehension isn't your strong suit, so I'll repeat: there's nothing in any of my comments that can be reasonably restated as I "think that every bookseller should give the consumer the option to purchase EVERY book." I challenge you to find anything I said that can be construed that way.
THIS bookseller made the decision to make THIS book available to its clientele. And yes, I think that the gays and lesbians who saw it should have let it alone, since it wasn't a LGBT retailer, or at least kept it between themselves and the retailer rather than running to a newspaper crying "think of the children!!!" (Which is why, Cracker Jack, this can't be considered to be a "we're just listening to our clientele" move; it's more of a damage control move.)
If you really believe in the concept of free speech, you never forget that it means free speech for those you most disagree with. You can split hairs over definitions, but you can't deny that this is an instance where some people took action to deny others the freedom to choose to purchase this book in this outlet. As such, you can't deny that it's contrary to the spirit of what free speech is.
35
Matt --
You are confused on a couple of issues yourself.
1) CVS is a drugstore, not a bookseller.
2) Free speech, as lizzie has pointed out, does not force anyone to provide a platform for said speech. Which is why you don't see pro-white power messages on TV or in the newspaper (or at CVS, for that matter).
The original article does make it clear that CVS made the decision because "We take any sentiment from customers that they are uncomfortable very seriously, and we’ll look into that." and later told Choice Books to remove the books.
Oh, and one of the complaining women was complaining because as a Jew she didn't appreciate the store only providing one theology. So it's not just the gays, it's those pesky Jews, too.
You are confused on a couple of issues yourself.
1) CVS is a drugstore, not a bookseller.
2) Free speech, as lizzie has pointed out, does not force anyone to provide a platform for said speech. Which is why you don't see pro-white power messages on TV or in the newspaper (or at CVS, for that matter).
The original article does make it clear that CVS made the decision because "We take any sentiment from customers that they are uncomfortable very seriously, and we’ll look into that." and later told Choice Books to remove the books.
Oh, and one of the complaining women was complaining because as a Jew she didn't appreciate the store only providing one theology. So it's not just the gays, it's those pesky Jews, too.
37
Sigh.
1) They were selling books. No, it's not their main line but saying they're not "booksellers" is a bit silly, especially given the large market share drug and grocery stores command as book retailers.
2) Why do you and Lizzie keep confusing this point? This is about them being forced NOT to carry an item they had ORIGINALLY decided to carry. Saying that this is wrong does not equal the notion that everyone should sell everything; it equals the notion that businesses should be free to provide it if they choose.
Before you say anything else, point out where I say they should be FORCED to carry this book. The rest of your argument will fall in line if you can do that.
1) They were selling books. No, it's not their main line but saying they're not "booksellers" is a bit silly, especially given the large market share drug and grocery stores command as book retailers.
2) Why do you and Lizzie keep confusing this point? This is about them being forced NOT to carry an item they had ORIGINALLY decided to carry. Saying that this is wrong does not equal the notion that everyone should sell everything; it equals the notion that businesses should be free to provide it if they choose.
Before you say anything else, point out where I say they should be FORCED to carry this book. The rest of your argument will fall in line if you can do that.
38
OK, I tried the sex offender locator app for the iPhone, but all it does is show me where the anti-gay initiative signers live ... what's up with that?
39
@37:
1) This is not in a book section. This is a single vendor display near the pharmacy. CVS in NY actually doesn't really have much of a book section.
2) No one forced them to do anything. They carried it, they were called out on it by customers, they considered the feedback and DECIDED not to carry the books. Where do you see anything that says they were forced NOT to carry the books?
1) This is not in a book section. This is a single vendor display near the pharmacy. CVS in NY actually doesn't really have much of a book section.
2) No one forced them to do anything. They carried it, they were called out on it by customers, they considered the feedback and DECIDED not to carry the books. Where do you see anything that says they were forced NOT to carry the books?
40
Yes, yes, Gram Parsons blah blah woof woof.
For extra credit, how do these two vids relate?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w10nZcj0…
http://www.kathleenedwards.com/video/bac…
@5 who wanted to talk about Dave Alvin might even know who plays Kathleen's boyfriend in the 2nd vid.
For extra credit, how do these two vids relate?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w10nZcj0…
http://www.kathleenedwards.com/video/bac…
@5 who wanted to talk about Dave Alvin might even know who plays Kathleen's boyfriend in the 2nd vid.
41
@ 39, now you're just stretching it. Besides splitting hairs over the bookseller thing (to prove what exactly?), we're talking about one person who wrote a letter to a newspaper, not hordes of customers dealing directly with the store (which, although not much better, would at least be more what you're describing). And please don't refer back to the pharmacy's CYA letter as proof either.
At this point I'm sure I can't convince you of anything - you've made up your mind because, in this instance, some anti-gay bigotry was removed from the heart of a gay neighborhood, and are judging it on that. I am a free speech absolutist and decry this sort of thing, no matter where it happens or to whom. I'm leaving it at that.
At this point I'm sure I can't convince you of anything - you've made up your mind because, in this instance, some anti-gay bigotry was removed from the heart of a gay neighborhood, and are judging it on that. I am a free speech absolutist and decry this sort of thing, no matter where it happens or to whom. I'm leaving it at that.
42
@41: I split the hairs about the bookseller thing because, believe it or not, aside from specialty bookshops (religious, LGBT, pipefitter technical), I think bookstores SHOULD base their selection on a broad variety of viewpoints, similar to a library.
Unfortunately your use of "forced" lost it for you. It pointed out exactly the flaw to your argument: No one forced CVS to do anything, either to carry the books, or not. It's a corporation making decisions based on weighing pros and cons of a situation. It has nothing to do with free speech or book banning or censorship. Free speech was not impinged -- there was no prohibition of the publication of the books and they're still available for purchase elsewhere.
If you are a "free speech absolutionist" you should learn what that right really means.
Unfortunately your use of "forced" lost it for you. It pointed out exactly the flaw to your argument: No one forced CVS to do anything, either to carry the books, or not. It's a corporation making decisions based on weighing pros and cons of a situation. It has nothing to do with free speech or book banning or censorship. Free speech was not impinged -- there was no prohibition of the publication of the books and they're still available for purchase elsewhere.
If you are a "free speech absolutionist" you should learn what that right really means.
43
Well, free speech means leaving that which you disagree with alone. Not hiding behind your supermajority status in your particular locality in order to ensure that you're not offended by something you vehemently disagree with.
If you take ANY steps to have something you disagree with removed from availability ANYWHERE, you don't believe in free speech, at least not for everyone.
If you take ANY steps to have something you disagree with removed from availability ANYWHERE, you don't believe in free speech, at least not for everyone.
44
Matt I stand by my last statement in the prior post. You are trying to lump commerce in with free speech. They are separate things. Freedom of speech =/= enforced distribution of all speech.
Personally, I see books like that around all the time. I don't care -- I don't pick them up. The women in the article, however, DID care and exercised their freedom of speech by contacting Chelsea Now and CVS and complaining. CVS (again) MADE A DECISION that carrying these books was not worth upsetting their customer base and dropped them and because we live in America, where there is freedom of religion and relatively free commerce, they are allowed to not carry those books if they don't want to.
The books continue to be published, distributed and sold. No one arrested the authors, took axes to the presses, flattened the tires of the delivery trucks or closed the stores that want to carry the books. NONE OF THAT HAPPENED. Freedom of speech was not breached.
Personally, I see books like that around all the time. I don't care -- I don't pick them up. The women in the article, however, DID care and exercised their freedom of speech by contacting Chelsea Now and CVS and complaining. CVS (again) MADE A DECISION that carrying these books was not worth upsetting their customer base and dropped them and because we live in America, where there is freedom of religion and relatively free commerce, they are allowed to not carry those books if they don't want to.
The books continue to be published, distributed and sold. No one arrested the authors, took axes to the presses, flattened the tires of the delivery trucks or closed the stores that want to carry the books. NONE OF THAT HAPPENED. Freedom of speech was not breached.
45
And I stand by my last statement too. Don't confuse freedom of speech with respecting free speech.
46
I don't confuse them. I respect free speech. I have no problem with those books being published and sold. I also respect the freedom of speech as it protects people speaking out against others' opinions.
What a store decides to, or not to, carry is commerce, not free speech and doesn't affect the right or the respect of the right one way or another.
What a store decides to, or not to, carry is commerce, not free speech and doesn't affect the right or the respect of the right one way or another.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (46) RSS