Rolling Stone Cover
 

New cover..Freedom of Speech or went too far?

They certainly have the right however it is way too far in my opinion.

I don't see the photo as trying to glamourize the kid. It's the same photo that was also used in the Times at some point.

If they wrote a hard knocking inside story on the kid/tragedy, what are they supposed to put on the cover, Lady Gaga?

So I really have no problem with it.


I saw someone post this on twitter, is that photo worse/more offensive than this one?

They Have The Right..imo..stupid But ....

I agree with Hooves, I dont read this publication very often but I totally do not support any type of glamorization of criminals, especially murdurers (albeit innocent until proven guilty).

Freedom of speech but very poor taste.
Happy most places in Massachusetts have refused to put it on the shelves.

Completely idiotic.

Let's send the message that the next nutjob to go off the deep end will get the cover. :rolleyes:


As beautiful as America is, we really do make some ****d up decisions.

Cover? No. Look, you don't think some idiot was saying something like..."Yea, I bet this causes a big stink and we get lots of extra press" Most likely related to the person who passed along the pilots names! Classless.

Sure it is offensive...you vote with your dollars. Don't buy it.

another example of there's no such thing as bad publicity. not crazy about the cover. i think it was a bad decision.

but on the poll, voted freedom of speech.

Free speech; of course I have the choice of buying it or walking away. Something Obamacare is missing. But sometimes the constitution is right and sometimes it's not. Similar to the bible I guess. :wf

I would have been more impressed if Rolling Stone, or magazine, for that matter, instead had devoted a cover to the owners of the fertilizer storage facility that blew up two days after the Boston Marathon bombing, seeing as how it killed more people, did much more damage, and was much more preventable (the company lied to the EPA about what they were storing):

http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/04/26/...h-of-it-wrong/

I read a quote somewhere after both tragedies that terrorists crave publicity and owners of companies that violate laws try to avoid it, and the media is happy to give both of them what they want.

:tro:

i find it ironic that tx wanted to secede and then complained fema didn't give them enough $. that they say they don't want more regulations, especially not on business and industry (see storage facility, above) but they just had a second special session to force more regulations on businesses....
ah, texas. ain't it grand.

A buddy of mine shared the band Disturbed's view on this that they posted on their fb page. Woahhh.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/mass-...ston-bomber/#4

a response from mass. police

and, yeah, declan, just saw what draiman had to say....i think he's a bit put out.

if you just put "I hate Obama and Obamacare" as your tagline, would your life be easier?

^^ :D

the policeman who posted the photos has been relieved of duty...may lose his job.

Here's an old one..
 

:D
:tro:

I don't get the choices, it conflates two separate issues. I thought the cover was in bad taste, but I'm for free speech. Saying "I feel that cover was inappropriate" is not the same as saying "they have no right to publish that cover"